# The Child Support injustice.



## VoteJP

A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not? 

If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.

So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.

Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?

The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.

And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.

Sad story but very real indeed.


----------



## mickinmd

I am happy you were arrested.  I am happy you spent time in jail.  I am happy your life has been ruined by your attitude toward the support of your children.  I am saddened that your kids are having so many difficulties in life that I directly attribute to the pos you are.


----------



## bcp

A significant point of the injustuce in the traffic laws is that when a speeder is  brought to court for speeding, then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they speed or not.

 if the Speeder was proved to have not been speeding, then the speeder becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the speeder was speeding, then the speeder is GUILTY.


----------



## bcp

A significant point of the injustice of the vehicle code laws is that when a scofflaw is brought to court for illegally operating a vehicle tagged as Historic, then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did the illegally operate that vehicle or not.

If the Illegal operator was proven not to have been in violation, they are NOT GUILTY, and if the illegal operator was operating illegally, then the illegal operator is GUILTY.


 This works on many levels.

 ban all laws.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



bcp said:


> A significant point of the injustuce in the traffic laws is that when a speeder is  brought to court for speeding, then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they speed or not.
> 
> if the Speeder was proved to have not been speeding, then the speeder becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the speeder was speeding, then the speeder is GUILTY.


  It is not the same at all.

In Child Support a parents is put in jail simply for being poor which means the parents has done nothing to merit a crime and thereby guilty of nothing.

A person speeding is in fact physically doing a crime.

And in violent crimes like murder than the accused "Defendant" can argue that it was done in self defense, or the death was an accident, or some one else killed the person, or temporary insanity, and other forms of legal defense in a Court of law.

It is a huge big difference in c/s cases, and an unjust difference.


----------



## mickinmd

VoteJP said:


> It is not the same at all.
> 
> In Child Support a parents is put in jail simply for being poor which means the parents has done nothing to merit a crime and thereby guilty of nothing.
> 
> A person speeding is in fact physically doing a crime.
> 
> And in violent crimes like murder than the accused "Defendant" can argue that it was done in self defense, or the death was an accident, or some one else killed the person, or temporary insanity, and other forms of legal defense in a Court of law.
> 
> It is a huge big difference in c/s cases, and an unjust difference.


I am happy you were arrested. I am happy you spent time in jail. I am happy your life has been ruined by your attitude toward the support of your children. I am saddened that your kids are having so many difficulties in life that I directly attribute to the pos you are.


----------



## Roberta

VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> 
> Sad story but very real indeed.




What kind of DRUGS did you take in your youth?  Your line of thinking is obviously a direct result of mind alternating drugs. We need to know so they can be super stressed as a big NO NO to the youth of today. Thanks for being a POSTER ADULT!!


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> *If they failed to pay they are guilty. *
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> *You can explain anything you want, you are offered a public defender or you can get a lawyer. You can explain to the judge if you are crippled or have been in the hospital etc... You can also file for a modification*
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> *I'ts not about taking the deadbeats money. It's about SUPPORTING THE CHILD... hence the words CHILD SUPPORT*
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> *Boohoo you gotta sell your possessions? SO WHAT. You created a child you take care of the child. No matter what it takes you should make sure your kid is taken care of. Their is no excuse for a parent to be a deadbeat. The custodial parent has no option to support their kid do they? Someone has to house, feed, clothe the child. *
> Sad story but very real indeed.
> *What is a sad story is a pathetic loser deadbeat parent who choses not to support the children they created. Sorry but their are jobs out there.. You can flip burgers or wrap tacos.. whatever it takes. *



* You gotta pay child support *


----------



## Tigerlily

JPC,
You post all of these threads about the unjustice that you have been dealt. So what if the mother of your kids just dropped them off at your place, gave them a big hug and hopped on a plane to never never land. Would you still whine an cry about your injustice then? I think you all would be the first in line to the STS bus to L-town to file for whatever you could get from Joe and jane taxpayer. Do the world a favor and shut up or get a JOB!!!


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> 
> Sad story but very real indeed.



Sorry to burst your bubble there JP... but all the above is false.

*It is a question of contempt of court- did the non-custodial parent have the ability or means to pay the support and fail to pay? in which case they are in contempt of their court order.

you really should stop spewing out all this false information, you have no clue what policy is involved in child support in the year 2009. 

Do some research and see what is really going on..... 

If a parent can't pay because they have no job they are sent to A jobs program.... where for FREE, 
they get help preparing a resume, 
help learning computer skills, 
help getting bonded- if they have employment barriers, help with getting a GED
help with job searches
bus passes to get to these classes
help if they are not working because they can't afford a RX
use of the internet
Help learning how to interview for a job

*


----------



## padowne

You are a deadbeat if you don't pay your child support. Mcdonalds is always hiring. Did you eat a good meal last night? Do you even care if your children ate? When you decided to have children you took on the resposibility of being a parent. Sorry to break it to you bud but that means supporting them financially. Perhaps if you didn't want to make sacrafices for them you should have kept it in your pants.


----------



## smdavis65

LusbyMom said:


> * You gotta pay child support *



 I gotta pay child support.

Seriously, what is so hard about paying child support? It's your responsibility as a father. Dur...


----------



## Pete

Of course all of you realize JPC has mental problems and you are wasting your time.  Every post in reply to his lunacy is like throwing a starving dog a treat.  (No insult intended to starving dogs)

He is a self centered leech on society.  He will never change his stance that he is a victim.


----------



## RoseRed

Pete said:


> Of course all of you realize JPC has mental problems and you are wasting your time.  Every post in reply to his lunacy is like throwing a starving dog a treat.  (No insult intended to starving dogs)
> 
> He is a self centered leech on society.  He will never change his stance that he is a victim.



Did anyone ever ask him why he didn't take custody of his son so he wouldn't have to pay child support and would he have tried to collect it from his ex if he were able to succeed in that?


----------



## toppick08

VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> 
> Sad story but very real indeed.



My daddy would so whip your ass.........


----------



## Pete

RoseRed said:


> Did anyone ever ask him why he didn't take custody of his son so he wouldn't have to pay child support and would he have tried to collect it from his ex if he were able to succeed in that?



I am sure somewhere in the hundreds of posts arguing with him it has been asked.  Go ahead though, I am sure his answers will be hilarious.

I suspect he had no choice .  what judge is going to give custody to a delusional no load?


----------



## RoseRed

Pete said:


> I am sure somewhere in the hundreds of posts arguing with him it has been asked.  Go ahead though, I am sure his answers will be hilarious.
> 
> I suspect he had no choice .  what judge is going to give custody to a delusional no load?



I'm not going to search for it.  Let's just see if he replies to it here.


----------



## Pete

RoseRed said:


> I'm not going to search for it.  Let's just see if he replies to it here.



It was probably back when he said kids have small stomachs and don't need that much to eat and they are small so they can sleep on a couch.


----------



## Bay_Kat

Pete said:


> It was probably back when he said kids have small stomachs and don't need that much to eat and they are small so they can sleep on a couch.



Somewhere around where he says teen pregnancy is fine and babies are a blessing to anyone.  Bars should be open 24/7 and there should be 10 lottery drawings a night. 

So basically, the people that would vote for him are drunks and deadbeat dads.


----------



## RoseRed

Pete said:


> It was probably back when he said kids have small stomachs and don't need that much to eat and they are small so they can sleep on a couch.



Probably.


----------



## LusbyMom

smdavis65 said:


> I gotta pay child support.
> 
> Seriously, what is so hard about paying child support? It's your responsibility as a father. Dur...



Spend a day at court when they are hearing child support cases... you will hear how hard it is for hundreds of deadbeat parents... both mothers and fathers. It's' really pathetic. You will see deadbeats who owe anywhere from a couple hundred to over a 100K. You will also see stupid women standing there with their deadbeat boyfriends/husbands. I guess they are proud to be standing by their man. I just think how stupid they are. Especially when they are pregnant.. umm hello the deadbeat doesn't support the kid or kids he already has. Do you think he will support yours?


----------



## Tilted

Ahhh, bitterness is an ugly old shrew. Oh yeah, she can be very tempting at first with that come hither smile and promises of immediate gratification and relief from the frustration and impotence. But, you'd best not succumb to her wiles. For, once you let her in, she'll take over. She'll suck up all the air, and suffocate everything that might have brought some real fulfillment to your life. And you want to talk about jealous? She's one jealous ass ##### - she has to be the center of your world - she won't stand for you having anything else in it, least of all, happiness.


----------



## bcp

Tilted said:


> Ahhh, bitterness is an ugly old shrew. Oh yeah, she can be very tempting at first with that come hither smile and promises of immediate gratification and relief from the frustration and impotence. But, you'd best not succumb to her wiles. For, once you let her in, she'll take over. She'll suck up all the air, and suffocate everything that might have brought some real fulfillment to your life. And you want to talk about jealous? She's one jealous ass ##### - she has to be the center of your world - she won't stand for you having anything else in it, least of all, happiness.


Post of the day?


----------



## smdavis65

Tilted said:


> Ahhh, bitterness is an ugly old shrew. Oh yeah, she can be very tempting at first with that come hither smile and promises of immediate gratification and relief from the frustration and impotence. But, you'd best not succumb to her wiles. For, once you let her in, she'll take over. She'll suck up all the air, and suffocate everything that might have brought some real fulfillment to your life. And you want to talk about jealous? She's one jealous ass ##### - she has to be the center of your world - she won't stand for you having anything else in it, least of all, happiness.



Are talking about bitterness, or my ex-wife?


----------



## struggler44

Pete said:


> Of course all of you realize JPC has mental problems and you are wasting your time.  Every post in reply to his lunacy is like throwing a starving dog a treat.  (No insult intended to starving dogs)
> 
> He is a self centered leech on society.  He will never change his stance that he is a victim.



Kinda like my ex wife that I pay child support to.


----------



## struggler44

smdavis65 said:


> Are talking about bitterness, or my ex-wife?



Could be bitterness or for all ex wives as when  you read LM post it changes from "both mothers and fathers" to he, he, he, he the more she writes


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Tigerlily said:


> JPC,
> You post all of these threads about the unjustice that you have been dealt. So what if the mother of your kids just dropped them off at your place, gave them a big hug and hopped on a plane to never never land. Would you still whine an cry about your injustice then? I think you all would be the first in line to the STS bus to L-town to file for whatever you could get from Joe and jane taxpayer. Do the world a favor and shut up or get a JOB!!!


  I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.

And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.

I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.

It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.


----------



## Pete

VoteJP said:


> I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.
> 
> And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.
> 
> I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.
> 
> It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.


And being financially supported by your biological parent is not a right?

Being on welfare is sinful stealing of the public loot when the separated parent has the money or the wherewithal to make the money but refuses.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> *If they failed to pay they are guilty.
> *


  No, in reality the parents are just poor and one can not truly be guilty of any crime just based on being poor - and thereby too poor to pay the Child Support demands.

And it cost over $20,000. per year for each prisoner in jail, and for that amount we could give each of the parents a full time 40 hour week job at the minimum wage and have money left over. And if we did that then the Child Support could be deducted from the new job and income taxes paid too and each time it would be one less person in jail.

Note: I do not propose giving the parents such jobs but the irony still stands in that equation.

Instead we have Child Support laws that pillage and plunder the separated parents until the parents are dead-broke and then the law put the parents into prison for 3 or 5 years accordingly and it is an ignorant way to run a gov. And only ONLY poor parents go to jail.



LusbyMom said:


> *You can explain anything you want, you are offered a public defender or you can get a lawyer. You can explain to the judge if you are crippled or have been in the hospital etc... You can also file for a modification*


  Sure a parent can do that after they plead "GUILTY" to not paying the Child Support, which means the parents are guilty first and then the parents must try to prove their true innocence AFTER pleading guilty.

It is unAmerican and maybe some day it will be declared as unConstitutional as other challenges, link one HERE.



LusbyMom said:


> *I'ts not about taking the deadbeats money. It's about SUPPORTING THE CHILD... hence the words CHILD SUPPORT*


  But that is just not real, and I know many people believe it is true that Child Support is to support the children but it is NOT.

Child Support is about "enforcing their right to support from both of their parents" which only means "Parenting Police". It talks hypocritically about "children" but it is only about controlling the parents.



LusbyMom said:


> *Boohoo you gotta sell your possessions? SO WHAT. You created a child you take care of the child. No matter what it takes you should make sure your kid is taken care of. Their is no excuse for a parent to be a deadbeat. The custodial parent has no option to support their kid do they? Someone has to house, feed, clothe the child.*


  The children all have everything they need and if any child lacks anything needed then it is ONLY because of the neglect or abuse by the custodial and NOT because of Child Support being paid or not paid.

And the custodial does have plenty of easy options to get anything the child(ren) needs to overflowing without getting any Child Support at all.

And the truest proof of all is that the poorest of poor families on Welfare have their Child Support payments confiscated by the State gov and that c/s payment is put into the State treasury - why? because the poorest of children already have everything they need to overflowing.



LusbyMom said:


> *What is a sad story is a pathetic loser deadbeat parent who choses not to support the children they created. Sorry but their are jobs out there.. You can flip burgers or wrap tacos.. whatever it takes.
> *


  No parent really choses to not support their own children as that is just slander and not true.

But it is right and proper for any parent to chose not to pay a thief even when the thief is a gov Child Support collection.



LusbyMom said:


> * You gotta pay child support *


  There is a better option now, in that voting JP as Governor and then say "bye-bye" to the thieving Child Support system.

There are always options and better choices when one investigates.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



daisycreek said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble there JP... but all the above is false.
> 
> It is a question of contempt of court- did the non-custodial parent have the ability or means to pay the support and fail to pay? in which case they are in contempt of their court order.
> 
> you really should stop spewing out all this false information, you have no clue what policy is involved in child support in the year 2009.
> 
> Do some research and see what is really going on.....
> 
> If a parent can't pay because they have no job they are sent to A jobs program.... where for FREE,
> they get help preparing a resume,
> help learning computer skills,
> help getting bonded- if they have employment barriers, help with getting a GED
> help with job searches
> bus passes to get to these classes
> help if they are not working because they can't afford a RX
> use of the internet
> Help learning how to interview for a job


  No, you are talking about things before the parents go to Court and I am referring to when the parents are going to Court and facing 3 years State prison or 5 years Federal prison for failure to pay the Child support demands.

And I do know about the "contempt of their court order" which is handled by the Court-Masters and not by a real Judge, and I know about trying to push the parents into any kind of jobs, and if the parents had a job or any assets that the Child Support collection could steal then the parent will not go to jail because stealing the c/s money means the c/s has been paid.

Putting the parents into jail only happens when the parents have no more money to give or to be stolen.

Only ONLY only the parents that are dead-broke will go to jail.


----------



## LusbyMom

struggler44 said:


> Could be bitterness or for all ex wives as when  you read LM post it changes from "both mothers and fathers" to he, he, he, he the more she writes



I would say the majority is men. If you spent just one day in CS court you would see 1-2 women and the rest are men. Which is probably why I wrote more of the "he". 

Their are deadbeat mothers AND fathers. And I would also say their are custodial parents who are deadbeats.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.
> 
> And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.
> 
> I have nothing against the *custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money *called as Child Support.
> 
> It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.



Live off of it? Are you serious? How much child support were you ordered to pay?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



RoseRed said:


> Did anyone ever ask him why he didn't take custody of his son so he wouldn't have to pay child support and would he have tried to collect it from his ex if he were able to succeed in that?


  At that time I did not know about the realities involved in divorce or custody or about Child Support procedures.

At the time I thought my ex-wife and our extended families were the best environment to leave my son in, and I never ever even considered taking custody myself. 

And even now today as I do know the ugly realities of the Child Support system then I surely would not wish that to be turned against my ex-wife as I do not like it being turned on anyone even when I do not know the families.

And I had no idea that my son would be so immature without his father raising him or else I would never had left him as I did. That was an awful mistake of mine and I did blow it for my son and for myself in that.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> No, in reality the parents are just poor and one can not truly be guilty of any crime just based on being poor - and thereby too poor to pay the Child Support demands.
> 
> And it cost over $20,000. per year for each prisoner in jail, and for that amount we could give each of the parents a full time 40 hour week job at the minimum wage and have money left over. And if we did that then the Child Support could be deducted from the new job and income taxes paid too and each time it would be one less person in jail.
> 
> Note: I do not propose giving the parents such jobs but the irony still stands in that equation.
> 
> Instead we have Child Support laws that pillage and plunder the separated parents until the parents are dead-broke and then the law put the parents into prison for 3 or 5 years accordingly and it is an ignorant way to run a gov. And only ONLY poor parents go to jail.
> 
> 
> Sure a parent can do that after they plead "GUILTY" to not paying the Child Support, which means the parents are guilty first and then the parents must try to prove their true innocence AFTER pleading guilty.
> 
> It is unAmerican and maybe some day it will be declared as unConstitutional as other challenges, link one HERE.
> 
> 
> But that is just not real, and I know many people believe it is true that Child Support is to support the children but it is NOT.
> 
> Child Support is about "enforcing their right to support from both of their parents" which only means "Parenting Police". It talks hypocritically about "children" but it is only about controlling the parents.
> 
> 
> The children all have everything they need and if any child lacks anything needed then it is ONLY because of the neglect or abuse by the custodial and NOT because of Child Support being paid or not paid.
> 
> And the custodial does have plenty of easy options to get anything the child(ren) needs to overflowing without getting any Child Support at all.
> 
> And the truest proof of all is that the poorest of poor families on Welfare have their Child Support payments confiscated by the State gov and that c/s payment is put into the State treasury - why? because the poorest of children already have everything they need to overflowing.
> 
> 
> No parent really choses to not support their own children as that is just slander and not true.
> 
> But it is right and proper for any parent to chose not to pay a thief even when the thief is a gov Child Support collection.
> 
> 
> There is a better option now, in that voting JP as Governor and then say "bye-bye" to the thieving Child Support system.
> 
> There are always options and better choices when one investigates.



You are insane  

So you are saying that if a child doesn't have everything they need they are abused/neglected by the custodial parent? But the non custodial parent should just continue to choose to be poor?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> No, you are talking about things before the parents go to Court and I am referring to when the parents are going to Court and facing 3 years State prison or 5 years Federal prison for failure to pay the Child support demands.
> 
> And I do know about the "contempt of their court order" which is handled by the Court-Masters and not by a real Judge, and I know about trying to push the parents into any kind of jobs, and if the parents had a job or any assets that the Child Support collection could steal then the parent will not go to jail because stealing the c/s money means the c/s has been paid.
> 
> Putting the parents into jail only happens when the parents have no more money to give or to be stolen.
> 
> Only ONLY only the parents that are dead-broke will go to jail.



Nope you are offered all of those things BEFORE a long prison sentence. The long prison sentence is for those who continue to play the system and use it. You get many chances to find a job and get help finding that job. Sounds like you would do anything to avoid supporting the child you created.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Pete said:


> And being financially supported by your biological parent is not a right?


 What you are saying is that the child has a "right" to their parents' money and it is just not true. 

In the not-so-old-days we use to call that circumstance as children under a "marriage" but not by today's laws.

In real-life if a parent is poor than the children are poor in accordance, and if the parents are rich then the children reap the benefits as the parents bestow them onto their own children.

The biggest billionaire Bill Gates has said that he is not going to give his children his big money as he is only giving his kids a pittance of the loot and he can do that because the children do NOT have any "right" to the parents' money.

And if a parent is poor or dead-broke then it is absurd to put the parents in jail like criminals to pay their children more than what their parents have. And included in that equation is that all the children already have every thing they need to overflowing.

So your claim sounds right but it is just belligerent.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> So you are saying that if a child doesn't have everything they need they are abused/neglected by the custodial parent?


  The custodials are usually employed or have some means of supporting them selves and if they do not then it is absurd to give child custody to a person or parent that is not capable to actually providing the custody.

That is what "custody" means is to provide everything the child needs.

And if the custodial is poor or underemployed or whatever then there are many resources including extended family and local Churches and gov Public Assistance, so there is no reason that any child does without any real need except for the neglect or abuse or incompetence of the custodial.

And when the custodial sees it as "unfair" then they have no business being given legal custody at all. I say give the custody to the parent with the money instead of taking the money and giving it to the custodial that fails to provide the custody.



LusbyMom said:


> But the non custodial parent should just continue to choose to be poor?


  I do not accept the nonsense that any person (parent or otherwise) chooses to be poor. 

But here in the USA the citizens are said to have freedom and if one wants to live a simple life or live wild then that is a normal human right and a person's free choice, and if poor parents have children then the children only get the life style that their poor parents give them.

It seems very inhuman to me to say that poor people can not have children unless they can afford a certain level of Child Support.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The custodials are usually employed or have some means of supporting them selves and if they do not then it is absurd to give child custody to a person or parent that is not capable to actually providing the custody.
> 
> That is what "custody" means is to provide everything the child needs.
> 
> *And if the custodial is poor or underemployed or whatever then there are many resources* including extended family and local Churches and gov Public Assistance, so there is no reason that any child does without any real need except for the neglect or abuse or incompetence of the custodial.
> 
> And when the custodial sees it as "unfair" then they have no business being given legal custody at all. I say give the custody to the parent with the money instead of taking the money and giving it to the custodial that fails to provide the custody.
> 
> 
> I do not accept the nonsense that any person (parent or otherwise) chooses to be poor.
> 
> But here in the USA the citizens are said to have freedom and if one wants to live a simple life or live wild then that is a normal human right and a person's free choice, and if poor parents have children then the children only get the life style that their poor parents give them.
> 
> It seems very inhuman to me to say that poor people can not have children unless they can afford a certain level of Child Support.



So you want the CP to go to their extended family or churches instead of the other parent who helped create that child? Do you realize how absurd that is?


----------



## Cletus_Vandam

VoteJP said:


> What you are saying is that the child has a "right" to their parents' money and it is just not true.


 
Here are several facts that YOU ARE NOT GETTING!!!

FACT 1:  When you fail to pay child support, you are being dragged back into court, not for failing to pay, but you are failing to comply with a court order.

FACT 2:  Child support rates are based on State standards based on earnings by both parents.  In the event the person paying support has a defined reduction in wages, he/she may request the courts to re-evaluate their case, in an effort to have their support adjusted.

FACT 3:  With regard to the quote you made above... A child must be supported by his parents.  I'm not sure why you believe that it is fair, reasonable, or expected that the State should support you child, when parents are able to support them.  You can work, get off your duff and get one or two jobs to support yourself and YOUR KID!!!


----------



## padowne

OMG. First you denied paternity when you asked for a DNA test. Then you were ordered to pay a measley 300.00 a month. Then you asked for a modification to reduce the 10.00 a day you were ordered to pay.  If 10.00 a day was too much for you to pay perhaps you should have filed for custody instead of attempting to deny paternity. Then you could have changed the diapers, stayed up all hours of the night with the child when he was ill and cleaned up the puke. Hey you would have even been allowed to pay for child care at 120.00 a week while you worked because I am sure you would have refused to take child support from the absent parent because it's such a travesty for her to have pay. Get over yourself and get a job!!


----------



## Pete

padowne said:


> OMG. First you denied paternity when you asked for a DNA test. Then you were ordered to pay a measley 300.00 a month. Then you asked for a modification to reduce the 10.00 a day you were ordered to pay.  If 10.00 a day was too much for you to pay perhaps you should have filed for custody instead of attempting to deny paternity. Then you could have changed the diapers, stayed up all hours of the night with the child when he was ill and cleaned up the puke. Hey you would have even been allowed to pay for child care at 120.00 a week while you worked because I am sure you would have refused to take child support from the absent parent because it's such a travesty for her to have pay. Get over yourself and get a job!!



He denied paternity?   I guess paternity was confirmed because the boy is a deadbeat himself.


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> No, you are talking about things before the parents go to Court NO, I AM TALKING ABOUT CONTEMPT HEARINGSand I am referring to when the parents are going to Court and facing 3 years State prison or 5 years Federal prison for failure to pay the Child support demands.THAT IS CRIMINAL NON SUPPORT- ARREARS OVER 10K & NO PAYMENT IN LAST 12 MONTHS OR 3 PREVIOUS CONTEMPT HEARINGS IN 1 YEAR
> 
> And I do know about the "contempt of their court order" which is handled by the Court-Masters APPARENTLY YOU DON'T BECAUSE JUDGE MICHAEL STAMM HEARS ALL THE CONTEMPT CASESand not by a real Judge, HE IS A REAL JUDGE- NOT A MASTERand I know about trying to push the parents into any kind of jobs, NO SOME ARE LIKE YOU AND WOULDN'T EVEN WORK IN A PIE FACTORY --TESTING PIESand if the parents had a job or any assets that the Child Support collection could steal then the parent will not go to jail because stealing the c/s money means the c/s has been paid.
> 
> Putting the parents into jail only happens when the parents have no more money to give or to be stolen.
> Only ONLY only the parents that are dead-broke will go to jail.



*You have convinced me, that you are truely entitled to Social Security disability benefits...As the only possible answer here must be  mental illness*

You have just won one election.. the honor of being the first person that I put on ignore..

*BUH BYE!*


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> So you want the CP to go to their extended family or churches instead of the other parent who helped create that child? Do you realize how absurd that is?


   No, it is NOT absurd at all. That is the traditional way for human beings all through history and in every culture in the entire World.

And it is a beautiful way of families pulling together.

And if we look at the true Americana story of the Walton's of Walton's Mountain by today's "modern" standard, then the Grandparents could have thrown out the Walton kids with the grandchildren, and the couple would break-up being too poor to pay rent for their 7 kids, and the Mom would go on Welfare with the father going to jail for Child Support, and that is all because in today's society the USA social norms have lost the Americana traditions and many turn to easy divorces with stealing of Child Support and broken families.

If today our Welfare laws would allow both the Parents with the children to get on Public Assistance as needed then it would help to hold the most vulnerable families together - but no.

What we do have is a family-unit break-up legal system that works great at destroying families.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Cletus_Vandam said:


> A child must be supported by his parents.  I'm not sure why you believe that it is fair, reasonable, or expected that the State should support you child, when parents are able to support them.  You can work, get off your duff and get one or two jobs to support yourself and YOUR KID!!!


  I only expect the State to support the children when the parents are poor (or the custodial needs it) and when they qualify for the Assistance.

Otherwise as in most cases I would prefer that the State to get completely out of the supporting of children business because so far the State has messed the whole thing up with its ignorant Child Support laws.

Other people want the State involved in supporting children but I want the State to get completely out of the Child Support business.


----------



## Pandora

this is all beyond ridiculous..  JPC, I bet your wife actually died of embarrassment!  In the past, I have been supportive of your expression of opinion but I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing you spew off your word vomit.  It gets old...  STFU  And a good way to ensure you STFU is to cut off your audience... so to those that respond to him, STOP!


----------



## bcp

Pandora said:


> this is all beyond ridiculous.. JPC, I bet your wife actually died of embarrassment! In the past, I have been supportive of your expression of opinion but I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing you spew off your word vomit. It gets old... STFU And a good way to ensure you STFU is to cut off your audience... so to those that respond to him, STOP!


worked on the baltimore sun forum.
 people quit responding, and as far as I know (havent been in a while) he stopped posting.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



padowne said:


> OMG. First you denied paternity when you asked for a DNA test. Then you were ordered to pay a measley 300.00 a month. Then you asked for a modification to reduce the 10.00 a day you were ordered to pay.  If 10.00 a day was too much for you to pay perhaps you should have filed for custody instead of attempting to deny paternity. Then you could have changed the diapers, stayed up all hours of the night with the child when he was ill and cleaned up the puke. Hey you would have even been allowed to pay for child care at 120.00 a week while you worked because I am sure you would have refused to take child support from the absent parent because it's such a travesty for her to have pay. Get over yourself and get a job!!


  It appears that you have my record mixed up with my son's case as we both have the same name and he is 32 and I am 53.

I never asked for any paternity test for my son as I was legally and happily married and my son looked exactly like me at his birth.

And my son asked for a paternity test for my Granddaughter because he wanted a test so no one could say it was not his daughter, and I myself happily paid the cost for his paternity testing. And his daughter looked very much like him too.

And my election campaign against Child Support has absolutely nothing to do with myself as my own case is closed and finished years ago around 1996 ?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



daisycreek said:


> You have just won one election.. the honor of being the first person that I put on ignore..


   The ignore is fine with me, and please take a few friends into hiding with you.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



bcp said:


> worked on the baltimore sun forum.
> people quit responding, and as far as I know (havent been in a while) he stopped posting.


  Do not you see how cowardice is so contagious?

I really only enjoy a discussion with the bold and the brave, so have fun in Never Land.


----------



## bcp

UH-OH

 JP is getting another slap down on his theory.

And the rest of us get some possible relief 

 What do you think about the state raising the child support ?


----------



## Tigerlily

JPC is running for office that would provide him a steady income from the state. Yet everything he stands for is against the system. Too bad he was not smart enough to buy some condoms. He has internet access but thinks his kid should just get by off of his ex and extended family. 

JPC list one thing that you have done that has actually contributed to your community and not to yourself. Personally I am still in shock that someone was dumb enough to breed with you but I am thinking she wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree though.

If you want to make change then start within. Politicians are not about change they are popularity contests. You are not popular so you will never be anything other than a nutjob with a can of spray paint and a bag full of lame excuses.


----------



## xusnret

*Good Deal*



bcp said:


> UH-OH
> 
> JP is getting another slap down on his theory.
> 
> And the rest of us get some possible relief
> 
> What do you think about the state raising the child support ?





Make the dead beats pay triple and get them out of our pockets. Their spawn they should support it not us.

Additionally I think we should rename JPC to *Bobby*, his little tangle with the bulls in the St Mary's lockup had him squealing just like Bobby in Deliverance.


----------



## xusnret

Hey Bobby remember the old days?
YouTube - Squeal Like A Pig (Deliverance)


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> No, it is NOT absurd at all. That is the traditional way for human beings all through history and in every culture in the entire World.
> 
> *And it is a beautiful way of families pulling together.*
> 
> And if we look at the true Americana story of the Walton's of Walton's Mountain by today's "modern" standard, then the Grandparents could have thrown out the Walton kids with the grandchildren, and the couple would break-up being too poor to pay rent for their 7 kids, and the Mom would go on Welfare with the father going to jail for Child Support, and that is all because in today's society the USA social norms have lost the Americana traditions and many turn to easy divorces with stealing of Child Support and broken families.
> 
> If today our Welfare laws would allow both the Parents with the children to get on Public Assistance as needed then it would help to hold the most vulnerable families together - but no.
> 
> What we do have is a family-unit break-up legal system that works great at destroying families.



Ok so you say it's a beautiful way of families pulling together. So wouldn't it be beautiful for a custodial parent AND a non custodial parent to pull together for their child?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



bcp said:


> And the rest of us get some possible relief
> 
> What do you think about the state raising the child support ?


  It is important to see in the Baltimore Sun link above which says that the call to raise the child support requirements is just to raise Maryland guidelines to be on *"par"* with other States.

*It is NOT because the custodials need more assistance,
and it is NOT because children are doing without,
and NOT because the paying parents can afford the increase - oh no.
*
The call to raise the child support payments is based on absolutely no need and no justification except to take more and to take as much as other States are taking.

This is an example of what is meant by the association of thieves, and the competition of thieves.

And the last two (2) sentences in that link says;

"a parent who now pays about $360 per month to support one child would have to pay about $457. Parents in the lowest income brackets would pay less than they do now if the recommendations are adopted. "

So it CLAIMS the lowest incomes pay less but those now paying the $360 are really poor already because a c/s order of $360 per month is for a working class parent that is not rich at all. There are many parents in jail now that have their child support payment as less than $360 and they want to raise this to $475 so we can put many more parents into poverty and into jail.

That Baltimore Sun report in that link shows that the Child Support is not to support children and it is only about stealing more and more money with no regard at all for the people that it hurts.

And pretending to help families by ripping-off the separated parents is a lie because the separated parents are part of the family unit.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> It is important to see in the Baltimore Sun link above which says that the call to raise the child support requirements is just to raise Maryland guidelines to be on *"par"* with other States.
> 
> *It is NOT because the custodials need more assistance,*
> *and it is NOT because children are doing without,*
> *and NOT because the paying parents can afford the increase - oh no.*
> 
> The call to raise the child support payments is based on absolutely no need and no justification except to take more and to take as much as other States are taking.
> 
> This is an example of what is meant by the association of thieves, and the competition of thieves.
> 
> And the last two (2) sentences in that link says;
> 
> "a parent who now pays about $360 per month to support one child would have to pay about $457. Parents in the lowest income brackets would pay less than they do now if the recommendations are adopted. "
> 
> So it CLAIMS the lowest incomes pay less but those now paying the $360 are really poor already because a c/s order of $360 per month is for a working class parent that is not rich at all. There are many parents in jail now that have their child support payment as less than $360 and they want to raise this to $475 so we can put many more parents into poverty and into jail.
> 
> That Baltimore Sun report in that link shows that the Child Support is not to support children and it is only about stealing more and more money with no regard at all for the people that it hurts.
> 
> And pretending to help families by ripping-off the separated parents is a lie because the separated parents are part of the family unit.


actually I think they are trying to offset what it costs the responsible taxpayers to supplement the deadbeats children.

 However, please feel free to spin it however needed to justify your plan of vengeance.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Tigerlily said:


> JPC is running for office that would provide him a steady income from the state. Yet everything he stands for is against the system.


  Sure, when I become Governor then I am going to fix the system and make it better. 

It is a great idea and an excellent plan.



Tigerlily said:


> Too bad he was not smart enough to buy some condoms. He has internet access but thinks his kid should just get by off of his ex and extended family.


   My son is grown 32 and my own c/s case is long years closed and over.

But I do not agree with "condoms" and I am happy that I had my son, and I do not recommend condoms for birth control as I say to most anyone to keep having more babies.



Tigerlily said:


> JPC list one thing that you have done that has actually contributed to your community and not to yourself.


  I simply must say that the best thing I ever did for society or for the entire World was the day I decided to spray paint the SMC Courthouse with the words "Child Support is legalized thievery" and "Thou shalt not steal" because that marks the day that true active resistance began and I still feel really proud of my action then and there.

That was the day when my active preaching of righteousness truly began.



Tigerlily said:


> Personally I am still in shock that someone was dumb enough to [marry] with you but I am thinking she wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree though.


  We met in Chopticon High School and we were both young and foolish, and I say it turned out as destined to turn out, and she certainly was a great blessing to me.



Tigerlily said:


> If you want to make change then start within. Politicians are not about change they are popularity contests. You are not popular so you will never be anything other than a nutjob with a can of spray paint and a bag full of lame excuses.


   We shall see.


----------



## JULZ

VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> 
> Sad story but very real indeed.



You are a disgrace to parenthood and more importantly to your children.  You are an effin' idiot.  Crawl back under your rock please!


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> Ok so you say it's a beautiful way of families pulling together.
> 
> So wouldn't it be beautiful for a custodial parent AND a non custodial parent to pull together for their child?


  Yes I do, and what you describe is called "marriage" where both parents pull together for their children.

But the law as it is now does the opposite in that the laws divide and separate and break up the families.

Separation and divorce is where the parents pull-apart, and the laws give easy divorce and gives custody that legally steals the children from one parent, and Child Support that gives a false appearance of union or working together when they are not.

The laws need to promote, protect and preserve the family unit and stop dividing it.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Yes I do, and what you describe is called "marriage" where both parents pull together for their children.
> 
> But the law as it is now does the opposite in that the laws divide and separate and break up the families.
> 
> Separation and divorce is where the parents pull-apart, and the laws give easy divorce and gives custody that legally steals the children from one parent, and Child Support that gives a false appearance of union or working together when they are not.
> 
> The laws need to promote, protect and preserve the family unit and stop dividing it.



No one stole your child from you. From what you said you are the one who walked away from your son and left him with his mother. That was YOUR choice. 

Divorced or not it is still your moral and legal obligation to support your child.


----------



## vraiblonde

Please help me understand why you all are STILL wasting your time arguing with JPC?  Do you think you will change his mind or something?


----------



## bcp

Forums, just as in society as a whole, need people that can be picked on and prodded to make others feel better about themselves.

 and its fun.
to me.
sorta

 well, no, not really

 I have no clue.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> No one stole your child from you. From what you said you are the one who walked away from your son and left him with his mother. That was YOUR choice.


  I am talking about legally stealing as under the custody laws and the Child Support laws and not about the custodials stealing because the custodials are subject to the ignorant laws too. The custodials only receive the stolen money and have custody of the stolen children.

Giving custody to one parent means the other parent has legally lost their own child which is equivalent to kidnapping or stealing the children. Then the separated parent must pay the Child Support as ransom money or else they will never see their children again. 

The system is full of stealing and kidnapping and robberies, and more.



LusbyMom said:


> Divorced or not it is still your moral and legal obligation to support your child.


 There is no real morality in paying Child Support and the only real morality is in defying the Child support, and on top of that the children are already provided with everything they need to overflowing so there is no morality at all in paying the Child Support.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



vraiblonde said:


> Please help me understand why you all are STILL wasting your time arguing with JPC?  Do you think you will change his mind or something?


  It is not about changing anyone's mind and you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.

We are not changing minds, it is about changing the laws and changing the State and changing the whole world.

And yes we do have the power to do it.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> It is not about changing anyone's mind and you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.
> 
> We are not changing minds, it is about changing the laws and changing the State and changing the whole world.
> 
> And yes we do have the power to do it.


Who is we?

 because, if the majority of "WE" had our way, you might still be in prison for neglecting your child.


----------



## libertytyranny

Though it is VERY clear to me that this JP person is off his freakin rocker..I have always had strong feeling about child support...I think that it is set up all wrong. ALLLLL too often it is used as punishment, not as real support. It is a punishment because the marriage or relationship or whatever didnt work out like someone wanted it to....my uncle has to pay out the ass to his ex..and she wont let him see the kids! is that fair? he wants to see them...and be involved but her crazy ass wont let him..so he takes her to court..to see them..and she starts making up riduculous things..all dismissed..but guess what? he still cant see them..thats just one example of many men I know that pay child support..it is punishment..guy gets a raise at work...and boom ex finds out about it..look whos goin to court again? and I know many women who dont use it for their children at all...they use it to make their lifestyles better. Now im SURE there are couples out there who work it out well and use it as intended..ive seen that too..

that being said..i cant really think of a way it can be changed to avoid "punishment" so it kinda has to be the way it is...just make sure who you breed with is a decent human..i guess


----------



## vraiblonde

VoteJP said:


> you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.



I do not recall claiming to be a mind reader.  But I do know that it's futile to argue with you, so I won't bother.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> It is not about changing anyone's mind and you really are way too far into mind control, as I remember you always claim to read the mind of others.
> 
> We are not changing minds, it is about changing the laws and changing the State and changing the whole world.
> 
> And yes we do have the power to do it.



I believe in personal responsibility.  You choose to ride the mattress happy w/o an effective Papa Stoppa, you by default have decided to follow the law of the land and be held accountable for your part in the creation and upbringing of a baby.  If you aren't paying child support there's a good chance our tax money is feeding, clothing, and housing your spawn. Call it a loan.  Judge ordered you to pay that 'loan' back. Why should the rest of us pay for your kid's needs?

Can't get a job due to a disabilty?  What?  I know a blind attorney, a wheel chair bound engineer with severe MS... Ever hear of Stephen Hawkings?  There are places even the severly mentally handicapped can go to make a few bucks and a little pride, assembling knick-knacks and doo-dads.  If you can operate a computer and get on this forum you can get a freakin' J-O-B.

If you want to change the world, perhaps you should have been telling people to keep their Mr. Happy in their pants rather than running around screwing everything that moves.  You could tell people now how to not screw up their lives by popping out a kid they aren't willing to support, and explain the impact on their lives from your own perspective.     

You porked.  She popped.  You pay.  Nothing unfair about it.  The law is as it should be.


----------



## carie_47421

This Dbag is moron...let me your fix quote...”WE" have the power to do it...to YOU DONT HAVE POWER TO DO SHI$! Here are a few of the many reasons you will not be elected...douche bag at its best...BAHAHAHAH


----------



## JULZ

TurboK9 said:


> I believe in personal responsibility.  You choose to ride the mattress happy w/o an effective Papa Stoppa, you by default have decided to follow the law of the land and be held accountable for your part in the creation and upbringing of a baby.  If you aren't paying child support there's a good chance our tax money is feeding, clothing, and housing your spawn. Call it a loan.  Judge ordered you to pay that 'loan' back. Why should the rest of us pay for your kid's needs?
> 
> Can't get a job due to a disabilty?  What?  I know a blind attorney, a wheel chair bound engineer with severe MS... Ever hear of Stephen Hawkings?  There are places even the severly mentally handicapped can go to make a few bucks and a little pride, assembling knick-knacks and doo-dads.  If you can operate a computer and get on this forum you can get a freakin' J-O-B.
> 
> If you want to change the world, perhaps you should have been telling people to keep their Mr. Happy in their pants rather than running around screwing everything that moves.  You could tell people now how to not screw up their lives by popping out a kid they aren't willing to support, and explain the impact on their lives from your own perspective.
> 
> You porked.  She popped.  You pay.  Nothing unfair about it.  The law is as it should be.





  AWESOME way with words.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



libertytyranny said:


> Though it is VERY clear to me that this JP person is off his freakin rocker..I have always had strong feeling about child support...I think that it is set up all wrong. ALLLLL too often it is used as punishment, not as real support. It is a punishment because the marriage or relationship or whatever didnt work out like someone wanted it to....my uncle has to pay out the ass to his ex..and she wont let him see the kids! is that fair? he wants to see them...and be involved but her crazy ass wont let him..so he takes her to court..to see them..and she starts making up riduculous things..all dismissed..but guess what? he still cant see them..thats just one example of many men I know that pay child support..it is punishment..guy gets a raise at work...and boom ex finds out about it..look whos goin to court again? and I know many women who dont use it for their children at all...they use it to make their lifestyles better. Now im SURE there are couples out there who work it out well and use it as intended..ive seen that too..
> 
> that being said..i cant really think of a way it can be changed to avoid "punishment" so it kinda has to be the way it is...just make sure who you breed with is a decent human..i guess


  Off my rocker is okay because I am also a legally registered Democratic candidate for the Office of Maryland Governor.

So what I find is the same as you do that Child Support is ONLY about "punishing" the parents and it is NOT about supporting children at all.

And you see the ignorance of it in your Uncle's case but I find it to be ignorant and destructive in every family that Child Support is connected to.

Your conclusion that it needs to be accepted and it can not be changed is just a defeatist mentality of surrender and servitude to injustice without a fight, and I say no to that.

We can do some thing and we can break the dirty thieves and it has already begun to break down.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



vraiblonde said:


> I do know that it's futile to argue with you, so I won't bother.


  The reason for that is because I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.

This is a not a competition of who can beat the other because it is simply a moral question of right from wrong.

Stealing is wrong, receiving stolen money is wrong, and children do not need the Child Support is true.

I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.


----------



## kwillia

VoteJP said:


> The reason for that is because I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.
> 
> This is a not a competition of who can beat the other because it is simply a moral question of right from wrong.
> 
> Stealing is wrong, receiving stolen money is wrong, and children do not need the Child Support is true.
> 
> I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.



Wrong.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> I have no objection to parents getting onto Public Assistance programs as that is their right as Maryland citizens, and I would be happy if any parent dropped of their babies with me whether it were my own child or not because I love kids.
> 
> And it is not really the custodial parents that go after the Child Support as it is the gov laws that attack the separated parents for the money.
> 
> I have nothing against the custodial parents except to point out that they live off of sinful stolen money called as Child Support.
> 
> It is okay and respectable if the custodials get Welfare and Public Assistance because that is NOT sinful or stealing as Welfare is their legal right as citizens.



Wait?  What?  A "right" to public assistance?  Since when?  PA is not a "right".  Am I reading this right?  It's a "right" for the mother of a child with a deadbeat dad to recieve taxpayer funds in the form of public assistance, but when the state goes after the biological father for those funds, it's "sunful stolen money"?

So... I and every other taxpayer gets to pay for your spawn, and that's OK by you, as long as you aren't expected to pay for the poor little bastard's needs yourself?

I think the best way to 'fix' child support law would be to neuter / spay all the deadbeat dads and moms out there, and call it done.  Once a non-custodial parent goes beyond 180 days delinquent and fiscal ability to pay is shown as according to gross pay - basic living expenses, 'snip'.  Done deal.  Debt forgiven, and no more bouncy bouncy.  I'm not tlking about a simple vasectomy or ligitation, I'm talking hedge clippers / ice cream scoop.  

If I have to pay for YOUR kid, then you shouldn't able to have more.


----------



## xusnret

Here is a reenactment of when the X-Mrs Cusick through Bobby out.

YouTube - This Cat Betrayed His Girlfriend


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



TurboK9 said:


> Wait?  What?  A "right" to public assistance?  Since when?  PA is not a "right".


  Yes Public Assistance is a "right" for any citizen that qualifies.

And a "right" only means that the person can only be denied if they are unqualified by the given rules.

And the US Constitution says that the gov is to "promote the general welfare" of the population.



TurboK9 said:


> Am I reading this right?  It's a "right" for the mother of a child with a deadbeat dad to receive taxpayer funds in the form of public assistance, but when the state goes after the biological father for those funds, it's "sinful stolen money"?


  There really are no "deadbeat" Dads and a mother that qualifies for Public Assistance is thereby entitled to it, thank God. 

And neither the State nor anyone else has any right to steal money from the separated parents (Dads or Moms) as that is "stealing" as in "Thou shalt not steal" and so yes that is sinful to do, and it is then sinful money. 



TurboK9 said:


> So... I and every other taxpayer gets to pay for your spawn, and that's OK by you, as long as you aren't expected to pay for the poor little bastard's needs yourself?


   You might view children as "bastards" and as "spawn" but it is wrong to put such an ignorant view into our laws or into our social consciousness. 

We have Public Assistance programs for citizens in need and rightly so.



TurboK9 said:


> I think the best way to 'fix' child support law would be to neuter / spay all the deadbeat dads and moms out there, and call it done.  Once a non-custodial parent goes beyond 180 days delinquent and fiscal ability to pay is shown as according to gross pay - basic living expenses, 'snip'.  Done deal.  Debt forgiven, and no more bouncy bouncy.  I'm not talking about a simple vasectomy or ligation, I'm talking hedge clippers / ice cream scoop.


  It is barbaric and inhuman to base parenting and childbirth on the person's money levels, and basing children on money is a sick mentality.



TurboK9 said:


> If I have to pay for YOUR kid, then you shouldn't able to have more.


   You are not really paying for kids on Public Assistance, and I myself would be happy to take full care of yours or anyone's kids because I see kids as a blessing.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> "promote the general welfare" of the population.


 I dont think you actually understand what the meaning of welfare was when it was used in the constitution.
 Do you think that by any slim chance, the system created to steal from one and give to the lazy was by any chance at all, called welfare to fool the idiots that didnt understand the original wordage in the constitution?






> You are not really paying for kids on Public Assistance, and I myself would be happy to take full care of yours or anyone's kids because I see kids as a blessing.


 

 and yet, you were totally unwilling to support your own child. How strange does that sound to you?
 sounds pretty damn ignorant if you ask me.

 hell, you even left the state so you didnt even contribute in the way of taxes during that period.

 your claim that you would be happy to take full care of anyone other than yourself (and you dont even do that) falls short on merit.


----------



## vraiblonde

VoteJP said:


> The reason for that is because I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.
> 
> This is a not a competition of who can beat the other because it is simply a moral question of right from wrong.
> 
> Stealing is wrong, receiving stolen money is wrong, and children do not need the Child Support is true.
> 
> I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.





Whatever you say...


----------



## struggler44

Thought everyone was going to stop entertaining him......reminds me of my ex, always has to get the last word in and will hound you into agreeing with him.


----------



## struggler44

Oh, I pay my CS every month


----------



## bcp

From the CATO institute.



> The concept of welfare rights reflects a much more expansive conception of the role of government than anything envisioned by the Founding Fathers. "For Jefferson," observes legal scholar Louis Henkin, "the poor had no right to be free from want. The framers saw the purposes of government as being to police and safeguard, *not to feed and clothe and house.*" To this day the Supreme Court has not recognized a constitutional right to welfare goods.


 
 I think I might have to consider the CATO institutes opinion over JPCs. I guessing and, this is just a guess, that those in the institute might have a year or so more formal education that JPC. or, me for that matter.

 so, according to them, 
 The purpose of the government was not to feed and clothe and house those that refused to work and earn their own way. 
 the purpose of the government as far as the welfare of the country, was simply insure that those things required for someone to succeed, should they wish, were in place to do so.
 seems that the supreme court also sees it that way since they do not recognize a constitutional right to welfare goods. (food, clothes, housing.)

 Sorry JPC, you lose on this one. Welfare, as in payment from government to individual citizens is not a right, it is a privilege.

 Please do try and follow along. the sooner you understand these things, the sooner you will understand why it is a parents duty, and responsibility to support their own children financially, and emotionally.


----------



## vraiblonde

bcp said:


> Sorry JPC, you lose on this one.



Are you seriously trying to "win" something over a person like JPC?

Seriously?


----------



## Pandora

_Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
_
Albert Einstein


----------



## struggler44

Pandora said:


> _Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
> _
> Albert Einstein


----------



## bcp

vraiblonde said:


> Are you seriously trying to "win" something over a person like JPC?
> 
> Seriously?


dont bother, I'll get it myself.


----------



## xusnret

vraiblonde said:


> Are you seriously trying to "win" something over a person like JPC?
> 
> Seriously?



JPC/Bobby reminds me of that last kernal of corn, no matter how many times you flush it won't go away.


----------



## bcp

xusnret said:


> JPC/Bobby reminds me of that last kernal of corn, no matter how many times you flush it won't go away.


Psssst
 you might want to back off on some of the fiber in your diet.

 although, I'm sure that somewhere in the constitution is written the right to produce stubborn floaters.


----------



## vraiblonde

Pandora said:


> _Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
> _
> Albert Einstein



What she said


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Pandora said:


> _Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
> _
> Albert Einstein


  The saying below is far more accurate;  


"*Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. *"

*Friedrich Nietzsche 
*


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



bcp said:


> Sorry JPC, you lose on this one. Welfare, as in payment from government to individual citizens is not a right, it is a privilege.


 It is a *"privilege"* because a citizen first has to qualify for any Public Assistance.

But after the citizens does qualify then the Public Assistance becomes their right.


----------



## Roberta

VoteJP said:


> I am talking about legally stealing as under the custody laws and the Child Support laws and not about the custodials stealing because the custodials are subject to the ignorant laws too. The custodials only receive the stolen money and have custody of the stolen children.
> 
> Giving custody to one parent means the other parent has legally lost their own child which is equivalent to kidnapping or stealing the children. Then the separated parent must pay the Child Support as ransom money or else they will never see their children again.
> 
> The system is full of stealing and kidnapping and robberies, and more.
> 
> 
> There is no real morality in paying Child Support and the only real morality is in defying the Child support, and on top of that *the children are already provided with everything they need to overflowing* so there is no morality at all in paying the Child Support.



What is provided with everything they need to OVERFLOWING? And how in the he!! do you know about all children of a single parent home?

Back away from the bong or bottle


----------



## Roberta

libertytyranny said:


> Though it is VERY clear to me that this JP person is off his freakin rocker..I have always had strong feeling about child support...I think that it is set up all wrong. ALLLLL too often it is used as punishment, not as real support. It is a punishment because the marriage or relationship or whatever didnt work out like someone wanted it to....my uncle has to pay out the ass to his ex..and she wont let him see the kids! is that fair? he wants to see them...and be involved but her crazy ass wont let him..so he takes her to court..to see them..and she starts making up riduculous things..all dismissed..but guess what? he still cant see them..thats just one example of many men I know that pay child support..it is punishment..guy gets a raise at work...and boom ex finds out about it..look whos goin to court again? and I know many women who dont use it for their children at all...they use it to make their lifestyles better. Now im SURE there are couples out there who work it out well and use it as intended..ive seen that too..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that being said..i cant really think of a way it can be changed to avoid "punishment" so it kinda has to be the way it is...just make sure who you breed with is a decent human..i guess


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> It is a *"privilege"* because a citizen first has to qualify for any Public Assistance.
> 
> But after the citizens does qualify then the Public Assistance becomes their right.



Are you even aware of the difference between a "right" and a priviledge?

"Rights" apply to all citizens.  Unless guaranteed by the federal or state constitution, it is not a "right".  Nothing in either constitution gives you a "right" to public assistance.  Sheesh.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> Yes Public Assistance is a "right" for any citizen that qualifies.
> 
> And a "right" only means that the person can only be denied if they are unqualified by the given rules.



Wrong.  Rights are defined by the constitution as rights.  Nowhere are you given a right to public assistance.



> And the US Constitution says that the gov is to "promote the general welfare" of the population.



So if I promote oil changes at Jiffy Lube I'm expected to pay for everyone's oil?  They promote it by granting everyone the same opportunities.  If you decide to take a path in life that leaves you behind, broke and destitute, that's your problem.  





> There really are no "deadbeat" Dads and a mother that qualifies for Public Assistance is thereby entitled to it, thank God.
> 
> And neither the State nor anyone else has any right to steal money from the separated parents (Dads or Moms) as that is "stealing" as in "Thou shalt not steal" and so yes that is sinful to do, and it is then sinful money.



Riiight.  There are no deadbeat dads because it isn't their fault the woman got pregnant....  someone held a gun to their heads and made them f***.  And the sun is purple, and my shoes have rocket power.  Let's just clarify this.... You believe that a man should be able to impregnate a woman, and that when he refuses to contribute montetarily to the child's care, that should be his choice and the state should not go after him to make him pay for his kid's needs.  Does that pretty much sum it up?

So do you believe that state should not enforce consequence for anything then?  Burn all the laws, demolish all the jails, let anarchy rule?  Or do you only feel this way on topics that are personal to you?  It's good for JP, so screw everyone else, including the kids?




> You might view children as "bastards" and as "spawn" but it is wrong to put such an ignorant view into our laws or into our social consciousness.



No, I view any children with absentee deadbeat fathers as 'bastards', by the true definition of the word.  Look it up.  Spawn?  Does that offend you?  Spawn simply means 'offspring'.  Of course, in your case, it might be  'demon spawn', who knows... 




> We have Public Assistance programs for citizens in need and rightly so.



That is a matter of opinion.  Our PA system is geared for long term assistance and tends to trap people into it's web.  It should be tailored for short term emergency assistance, and toward getting people educated and employed.  The PA system currently penalizes people for incremental success, and it should not.  It is broken, and has been broken since it's inception, as it is used as a tool to keep the poverty stricken under the boot of the Democratic party.



> It is barbaric and inhuman to base parenting and childbirth on the person's money levels, and basing children on money is a sick mentality.



Opinion again.  I feel it is barbaric and cruel to bring a child into this world and divest yourself of any and all responsibility for it's welfare, financial or emotional, yet that is exactly what you are advocating for.  Nice!




> You are not really paying for kids on Public Assistance, and I myself would be happy to take full care of yours or anyone's kids because I see kids as a blessing.




OK so here we have a guy who says kids are not entitled to their biological father's financial support.  This guys says the state should not make sure daddy is doing his part.  Now he says kids are a blessing...  
Yeahhh.... demonize the child support system and absolve all the deadbeat dads from their responsibility because you believe children are a blessing... You do realize that makes no sense right?  

Really?  You would be happy to take full care of my kids?  You believe you shouldn't have to take care of your own, but your willing to care for other people's?  That's just creepy.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Roberta said:


> What is provided with everything they need to OVERFLOWING? And how in the he!! do you know about all children of a single parent home?
> 
> Back away from the bong or bottle


  One way of knowing that all children in the USA have all of their needs overflowing is that there are Social Services in every State of the USA and there are Churches and charities and Thrift stores and lots of other provisions available to any custodial or child in need of anything.

And a second way of knowing is that the Federal Law allows every State in the USA to take the Child Support payments from the poorest of poor families on Welfare because the law knows all the custodials and all the children already have all they need to overflowing.

So since the State takes and keeps the Child Support loot from the poorest of the poor families then we can know that all other families have more money and more options because other custodials are richer than the poorest of the poor custodials.

Therefore I can confidently say as-a-matter-of-fact that all children in the entire USA already have all of their true needs provided to OVERFLOWING without counting even one penny of the Child Support.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> One way of knowing that all children in the USA have all of their needs overflowing is that there are Social Services in every State of the USA and there are Churches and charities and Thrift stores and lots of other provisions available to any custodial or child in need of anything.
> 
> And a second way of knowing is that the Federal Law allows every State in the USA to take the Child Support payments from the poorest of poor families on Welfare because the law knows all the custodials and all the children already have all they need to overflowing.
> 
> So since the State takes and keeps the Child Support loot from the poorest of the poor families then we can know that all other families have more money and more options because other custodials are richer than the poorest of the poor custodials.
> 
> Therefore I can confidently say as-a-matter-of-fact that all children in the entire USA already have all of their true needs provided to OVERFLOWING without counting even one penny of the Child Support.




Which does not negate the responsibility you incur to your biological children.  Society should not have to pay for the sexual adventures of the irresponsible and lazy.  The money for the services and necessities you talk about comes from the pockets of tax payers and philanthropists, it doesn't materialize out of thin air.  The parents should be supporting to the fullest extent they are financially able to. If that means daddy has to live at the bare minimum, no beer money, no cable, just a small shared apartment, take the bus instead of own a car, hot dogs instead of steak, than that's what daddy needs to do.

Just my opinion.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



TurboK9 said:


> Riiight.  There are no deadbeat dads because it isn't their fault the woman got pregnant....  someone held a gun to their heads and made them f***.  And the sun is purple, and my shoes have rocket power.


  The calling of parents as "deadbeats" has nothing to do with impregnating woman or penalizing the Alpha males - no, parents are called that just for not paying the Child Support.

And the so-called "deadbeats" in jail are just dead-broke and have no resources to pay the thieving Child Support. 

So that name-calling is only an unjust slander against poor parents that have no money to pay.



TurboK9 said:


> Let's just clarify this.... You believe that a man should be able to impregnate a woman, and that when he refuses to contribute montetarily to the child's care, that should be his choice and the state should not go after him to make him pay for his kid's needs.  Does that pretty much sum it up?


  Yes, that is clear enough.

The father (or Mom) will voluntarily provide everything to their own children just as all human parents have always done, and for the times that a parent choses not to provide then that is a part of parenting, so having the State gov tracking down parents to pay cash when the children have no needs at all (and all have all they need) then that is an ignorant thing for the law to do.

Children and parenting are not a commodity where one must pay $500 per month and that means its done - no, parenting is not to be a money equation. 



TurboK9 said:


> So do you believe that state should not enforce consequence for anything then?  Burn all the laws, demolish all the jails, let anarchy rule?  Or do you only feel this way on topics that are personal to you?  It's good for JP, so screw everyone else, including the kids?


  No, parenting is not equatable to violent crimes.

Of course we need jails and laws and righteousness, but we do not need Parenting Police and we do not need the ignorant Child Support laws. 



TurboK9 said:


> No, I view any children with absentee deadbeat fathers as 'bastards', by the true definition of the word.  Look it up.  Spawn?  Does that offend you?  Spawn simply means 'offspring'.  Of course, in your case, it might be  'demon spawn', who knows...


  Unfortunately it is your filthy perception that subsequently gives you the filthy opinions too.

All children are a blessing from God.



TurboK9 said:


> Really?  You would be happy to take full care of my kids?  You believe you shouldn't have to take care of your own, but your willing to care for other people's?  That's just creepy.


   I do like taking care of our own children too, but do not pay the thievery of Child Support.


----------



## TurboK9

Wow.  I was going to play the whole quote game again.  But you know so little about the topic at hand it astounds me.  I have never known a deadbeat parent who was jailed for not paying child support due to legitimate circumstances beyond their control.  However, I know (or know of) many who have been jailed because they DECIDED not to pay child support in favor of living at a higher standard themselves.  

The FACT is that the state will work with you if you have legitmate circumstances that put you in a financial position where you are incapable of meeting court ordered child support.  Key word is legitimate.  If you were laid off, lost your legs, broke your back, suffered an anuerism, etc they will work with you.  If you decide to QUIT your job, or you need an LCD TV and cable w/ internet, or beer, or drugs, or a new truck, or a bigger house, or your own apartment, or money for the bar to try to knock up other women;  and skip out on your payments to get it, then no, they won't work with you, which is as it should be.

The world would be a much nicer place if such people would STFU, suck it up, and live up to their responsibilities rather than cut and run and make lame excuses every time it got a little tough for them.  

I don't care if you are on a fixed income of $1500/ month.  You can live on $1000 and pay your support.  Get a cheap apartment w/ a roomie, eat ramen noodles and hotdogs and cold cereal.  And do your friggin' part.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



TurboK9 said:


> Wow.  I was going to play the whole quote game again.  But you know so little about the topic at hand it astounds me.  I have never known a deadbeat parent who was jailed for not paying child support due to legitimate circumstances beyond their control.  However, I know (or know of) many who have been jailed because they DECIDED not to pay child support in favor of living at a higher standard themselves.
> 
> The FACT is that the state will work with you if you have legitmate circumstances that put you in a financial position where you are incapable of meeting court ordered child support.  Key word is legitimate.  If you were laid off, lost your legs, broke your back, suffered an anuerism, etc they will work with you.  If you decide to QUIT your job, or you need an LCD TV and cable w/ internet, or beer, or drugs, or a new truck, or a bigger house, or your own apartment, or money for the bar to try to knock up other women;  and skip out on your payments to get it, then no, they won't work with you, which is as it should be.
> 
> The world would be a much nicer place if such people would STFU, suck it up, and live up to their responsibilities rather than cut and run and make lame excuses every time it got a little tough for them.
> 
> I don't care if you are on a fixed income of $1500/ month.  You can live on $1000 and pay your support.  Get a cheap apartment w/ a roomie, eat ramen noodles and hotdogs and cold cereal.  And do your friggin' part.


   I certainly know that I am against people like you, and I do not need every vote to be elected, and I say you give us all an excellent example of the equation concerning Child Support and my position.

Parents have a choice of doing as you expect in your quote above, or do as I say and defy you and defy the entire Child Support system and fight it.

The parents and families can become slaves to that crap as you expect, or become free as I offer and direct.

And I do not say that the parents must fight alone because people of conscience like myself that are not involved with Child Support need to help out our society by helping the parents to fight the hateful and ignorant claims of yours and of the Child Support system.

Your claims are as fraudulent as the claims of Child Support - and I defy you both.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> I certainly know that I am against people like you, and I do not need every vote to be elected, and I say you give us all an excellent example of the equation concerning Child Support and my position.
> 
> Parents have a choice of doing as you expect in your quote above, or do as I say and defy you and defy the entire Child Support system and fight it.
> 
> The parents and families can become slaves to that crap as you expect, or become free as I offer and direct.
> 
> And I do not say that the parents must fight alone because people of conscience like myself that are not involved with Child Support need to help out our society by helping the parents to fight the hateful and ignorant claims of yours and of the Child Support system.
> 
> Your claims are as fraudulent as the claims of Child Support - and I defy you both.



Heck you are defying reason too.  

People like me... You must mean hard working, responsible, educated Americans who want everyone to pull their own weight, and to be responsible parents and citizens.  

"Hateful and ignorant".  LOL.  Sure, JP.  Please explain to me how demanding that parents live up to their responsibilities is hateful?  Or how not wanting to have to use taxpayer dollars to provide for someone elses children (except in extreme cases where the parents are unable... not unwilling or too lazy) is hateful?  How is it that believing that we have a responsibility to provide for our biological children is ignorant, and how is believing that parents need to sacrifice and put off reward to do so is ignorant?

LOL.  You are a card.  "Need every vote".  LOL.  You dang sure need more than you're going to get, I can promise you that!

Now, can you cite a single factual and verifiable case where a 'deadbeat' parent was jailed for non payment of child support, where the parent was below the poverty line and suffering a financial hardship due to no fault of their own?  IE severe medical issues, lay off, etc, and where they did not have assets they could have liquidated to pay the support?  Just one bonafide, verifiable case?  Not an "I heard" or a "me / my son / nephew / cousin / friend".  Bet you can't.

Please explain to me how it is just for a child to live off meager PA funding while daddy drives around in his new pick up truck and goes home to his new house to watch his 54" TV?   Cuz' that's what you are advocating.


----------



## Tilted

JP, seriously, I'm telling you this for your own good. I'm not trying to be hurtful - I sincerely wish the best for you.

Let it go. You've been carrying the pain and bitterness long enough - it is time to let it go.

Your marriage didn't work, from what you've said (as that's all I have to go off of), it sounds like your wife didn't want you anymore - who knows why? We could speculate till the cows come home, but it doesn't matter. We could rattle off endless possible reasons, some of them emotionally biting and personally difficult to confront, some of them emotionally re-affirming and personally comforting to believe - it doesn't matter. She left you, or cheated on you, or you all broke up for whatever reason, and your 'family' was no more - at least not as you had desired it to be. That was not caused by the state. It was not caused by the state's child support enforcement system. It might not have seemed fair, and it might have been unfortunate - heck, it might even have been avoidable - but it wasn't something done to you by anyone other than yourself or your wife. No one else destroyed your family.

Now, I get that you were hurt. I get that you were emotionally frustrated. We've all been there at some point and to some degree - there's no shame in that. Life isn't about the situations we find ourselves in, it's about how we deal with those situations. I get that you were angry. You wanted to punish your wife by denying her financial support and making her life more difficult. I get that. I get how important that was to you - it was more important to you than taking care of your child, it was more important to you than your dignity, it was more important to you than staying out of jail. I get that. You were willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. I get that. It seems that you have harmed yourself a great deal in so doing, but that's in the past. I get that your anger at your wife was transplanted onto the child support enforcement system, because it dared to try to stop you from punishing your wife by not providing her with financial support. I get it. Really - we all do. But, I'm trying to suggest to you that it is not too late - you can still let it go. Let go of the anger and bitterness, and free up some space for the beautiful sensations and feelings and thoughts and experiences that the world will make available to you. Just let it go.

The child support system did not destroy your family - it just didn't.

Furthermore, whatever did - it just doesn't matter anymore - whatever happened, happened.  That can't be changed by pretending that the fault for it is precisely embodied in some institution which you can now try to dismantle. That's delusional, and you need to let go of that delusion. Trust me on this, you will wake up a happier man the morning after you do. The world will smell better, it will taste better, it will look better. Your world will expand and possibilities will exist where before they had not. Please, forget about what everybody else thinks and do it for yourself - LET IT GO.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



TurboK9 said:


> People like me... You must mean hard working, responsible, educated Americans who want everyone to pull their own weight, and to be responsible parents and citizens.


  I mean self righteous people like you, that speak as if your are better than others, and particularly that you are a better parent than other parents, and it is just your misguided and inflated ego. 

And that is no meant as personal to you as I simply have to fight against your kind of belligerence.



TurboK9 said:


> "Hateful and ignorant".  LOL.  Sure, JP.  Please explain to me how demanding that parents live up to their responsibilities is hateful?  Or how not wanting to have to use taxpayer dollars to provide for someone else's children (except in extreme cases where the parents are unable... not unwilling or too lazy) is hateful?  How is it that believing that we have a responsibility to provide for our biological children is ignorant, and how is believing that parents need to sacrifice and put off reward to do so is ignorant?


  That is wrong because you and the State laws are not to be the "big-Daddy" to other people or to other parents.

The big-Daddy crud needs to be stopped.



TurboK9 said:


> LOL.  You are a card.  "Need every vote".  LOL.  You dang sure need more than you're going to get, I can promise you that!


  Yes, I am happy that you too appreciate the humor in it.

There is no need to get too serious in our discussions.

And when I move into the Governor's Mansion then you will not need to eat so many of your words.



TurboK9 said:


> Now, can you cite a single factual and verifiable case where a 'deadbeat' parent was jailed for non payment of child support, where the parent was below the poverty line and suffering a financial hardship due to no fault of their own?  IE severe medical issues, lay off, etc, and where they did not have assets they could have liquidated to pay the support?  Just one bonafide, verifiable case?  Not an "I heard" or a "me / my son / nephew / cousin / friend".  Bet you can't.


  My position is that every parent with not even one exception was jailed for unjust reasons even when the parents themselves do not know it. And a lot of the parents see themselves as guilty when it is just that the law is perverted and unjust.

And it is not my point to pick up one or a hundred particular cases because it is a matter of overriding principle and policy that makes so every parent under those laws are mistreated and abused whether they are seen to deserve it or if they are completely innocent.

I refuse to play the divide-and-rule game that some parents are innocent while you go after the evil parents because I know that every one of the parents are getting cheated and violated by the laws.

And I feel I must point out that the SMC Circuit Court refuses to allow public scrutiny of the Child Support cases claiming the Court is protecting the "privacy" when the Court is only hiding the record of the immoral thievery by the Court.

But for the record here is an interesting case of the injustice done in SMC Child support enforcement : http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2000/116a99.pdf  and it is a long document so you might want to start at the top of page 14 titled as "DISCUSSION" because that marks the High Court's actual decision.



TurboK9 said:


> Please explain to me how it is just for a child to live off meager PA funding while daddy drives around in his new pick up truck and goes home to his new house to watch his 54" TV?   Cuz' that's what you are advocating.


 The PA (Public Assistance) benefits is not meager at all. In fact the PA gives enough and so very much both to the custodial and to the children that the State keeps the Child Support loot even if the parents (Daddies) pay the Child Support or not.

So it can not be a meager PA when the State keeps the c/s and does not give it to the families on PA.

And as the law is now the Child Support does attack the separated parents and so the law will steal the parents' truck and paycheck and the 54" TV too, so your example sounds justified but it is an untrue scenario. And if the Child Support system was eliminated then it is still an unjust scenario that other parents are not as righteous as you pretend to be.

I say it is wrong to make such junk into our laws and to put parents in jail because people like you do not trust thy fellow parents.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Tilted said:


> JP, seriously, I'm telling you this for your own good. I'm not trying to be hurtful - I sincerely wish the best for you.
> Let it go. You've been carrying the pain and bitterness long enough - it is time to let it go.
> Your marriage didn't work, from what you've said (as that's all I have to go off of), it sounds like your wife didn't want you anymore - who knows why?
> That was not caused by the state. It was not caused by the state's child support enforcement system.
> No one else destroyed your family.
> Now, I get that you were hurt. I get that you were emotionally frustrated.
> I get that your anger at your wife was transplanted onto the child support enforcement system, because it dared to try to stop you from punishing your wife by not providing her with financial support. I get it.
> The child support system did not destroy your family - it just didn't.
> Furthermore, whatever did - it just doesn't matter anymore - whatever happened, happened.


   I do not blame or accuse the State or the Child Support for breaking up my marriage, and not for destroying my family, and I am not emotionally frustrated, and I am not angry at my ex-wife.

I am not trying here to seek revenge, and if I were then I would use the weapons of revenge - but no.

I am really just trying to be a public servant, as in serving-the-public by addressing the Child Support problem, and I have nothing to gain from Child Support reform at all.

This is not about me or about my life and not about anything concerning me.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I certainly know that I am against people like you, and *I do not need every vote to be elected*, and I say you give us all an excellent example of the equation concerning Child Support and my position.
> 
> Parents have a choice of doing as you expect in your quote above, or do as I say and defy you and defy the entire Child Support system and fight it.
> 
> The parents and families can become slaves to that crap as you expect, or become free as I offer and direct.
> 
> And I do not say that the parents must fight alone because people of conscience like myself that are not involved with Child Support need to help out our society by helping the parents to fight the hateful and ignorant claims of yours and of the Child Support system.
> 
> Your claims are as fraudulent as the claims of Child Support - and I defy you both.



Maybe you can hang out with all the other deadbeats after child support court.. and you can get their vote.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I am completely and absolutely correct on this subject and any argument contrary will always be futile.


If this is true, why do you insist on continuing to pound the point instead of shutting up?



> I am on the high ground and that is why all fail that argue against my platform.


And if this is true, why are you not currently holding a SMC Commissioner's seat or Hoyer's HoR seat?

(No reply is necessary because even if you do reply it will be digressing and false.)

I am amazed that you are still going, Jimmy.  Not in an admiring way, of course, but more of a circus sideshow way.  Anyone who does wish to get into it with you need only search on your posts from your previous election runs... it's easy to see the _thousands_ of times you have already been proven incorrect, even a bona fide liar, on just about everything.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> I mean self righteous people like you, that speak as if your are better than others, and particularly that you are a better parent than other parents, and it is just your misguided and inflated ego.
> 
> And that is no meant as personal to you as I simply have to fight against your kind of belligerence.



Haha!  I differ in my opinion and so I am self righteous... LOL.  But then, yes, I do think I am a better parent.  Because I am parenting.  An absentee parent isn't much of a parent, by choice or not.  They simply are not doing the job.  



> That is wrong because you and the State laws are not to be the "big-Daddy" to other people or to other parents.
> 
> The big-Daddy crud needs to be stopped.



How is that an answer to the question?  



> Yes, I am happy that you too appreciate the humor in it.
> 
> There is no need to get too serious in our discussions.
> 
> And when I move into the Governor's Mansion then you will not need to eat so many of your words.



Good luck with that.



> My position is that every parent with not even one exception was jailed for unjust reasons even when the parents themselves do not know it. And a lot of the parents see themselves as guilty when it is just that the law is perverted and unjust.
> 
> And it is not my point to pick up one or a hundred particular cases because it is a matter of overriding principle and policy that makes so every parent under those laws are mistreated and abused whether they are seen to deserve it or if they are completely innocent.
> 
> I refuse to play the divide-and-rule game that some parents are innocent while you go after the evil parents because I know that every one of the parents are getting cheated and violated by the laws.
> 
> And I feel I must point out that the SMC Circuit Court refuses to allow public scrutiny of the Child Support cases claiming the Court is protecting the "privacy" when the Court is only hiding the record of the immoral thievery by the Court.
> 
> But for the record here is an interesting case of the injustice done in SMC Child support enforcement : http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2000/116a99.pdf  and it is a long document so you might want to start at the top of page 14 titled as "DISCUSSION" because that marks the High Court's actual decision.



How convenient to simply dodge the question.

I also found this interesting, being that it reinforces my position, in your PDF...



> "As these cases, and many others that preceded them, illustrate, it may be
> frustrating to judges and masters to have to deal with people who appear to be *deliberately ignoring their child-support obligations*, by spending available funds for other purposes, by
> *voluntary* impoverishment, by *refusing to obtain steady employment*, or by other techniques
> —people who return time and again with excuses that the judge or master finds incredible or inadequate and who thus seem to *flaunt their defiance of properly entered court orders*."



Interesting that the court holds the same opinion of these people as I.  I especially like the one guy with 4 kids by 3 different women.  Nice.  What a winner!



> The PA (Public Assistance) benefits is not meager at all.  In fact the PA gives enough and so very much both to the custodial and to the children that the State keeps the Child Support loot even if the parents (Daddies) pay the Child Support or not.  *To pay back the states coffers for what is being provide, of course.*
> So it can not be a meager PA when the State keeps the c/s and does not give it to the families on PA. *If the state provides $1800 a month and the CS is $500 a month, the $500 SHOULD go to offset the state's contribution.*



I don't know what YOUR definition of meager is, but I guarantee you the people on public assistance are well below the poverty line.  Now, if the child support exceeds the states aid for the childs needs, then yes, keeping it is wrong.  But, since a typical 2 bedroom apartment costs more than $500 a month alone, plus of course food, clothes, money, medical... very very few CS payments will ever exceed that.  



> And as the law is now the Child Support does attack the separated parents and so the law will steal the parents' truck and paycheck and the 54" TV too, so your example sounds justified but it is an untrue scenario. And if the Child Support system was eliminated then it is still an unjust scenario that other parents are not as righteous as you pretend to be.



Not if that stuff is in someone elses name they won't, Mommy, girlfriend, etc.   Not if you jump state.  You aren't really that naive, are you?  Here we go with the righteousness again.  I don't think I'm any better than any other parent doing their best to support their kids.  Let me say it again, I only have a problem with those who willfully dodge.  Why would you even argue that?  See, that's what really blows my mind.  You are advocating for those who choose...CHOOSE to not financially support their children.  Yes.  I do think I'm a better parent than people who CHOOSE not to support their kids.  If that makes me self-righteous, so be it.  



> I say it is wrong to make such junk into our laws and to put parents in jail because people like you do not trust thy fellow parents.



Here we go with the 'people like' me again...  Trust?  It's not a trust issue.  If you aren't taking care of your kids, you aren't a 'fellow parent'.  That's like calling my neighbor, who is a teacher, my fellow engineer.  You have to do it to be it.  Having a biological child does not make you a parent.  You have to raise it too.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



hvp05 said:


> If this is true, why do you insist on continuing to pound the point instead of shutting up?


  This is a very interesting subject to discuss and to learn more about.

And we are going to completely change the thieving Child Support system and that is exciting too.


hvp05 said:


> And if this is true, why are you not currently holding a SMC Commissioner's seat or Hoyer's HoR seat?


   I do not want to be a little cheese when I can be the big Governor - duh.



hvp05 said:


> (No reply is necessary because even if you do reply it will be digressing and false.)


   You never were any fun, and you always miss the humor in everything.

This is not just a challenging and cool adventure, but it also a fun and enjoyable trip too.



hvp05 said:


> I am amazed that you are still going, Jimmy.  Not in an admiring way, of course, but more of a circus sideshow way.  Anyone who does wish to get into it with you need only search on your posts from your previous election runs... it's easy to see the _thousands_ of times you have already been proven incorrect, even a bona fide liar, on just about everything.


  It is sad that you do not understand what is in front of your eyes.

And I do not know how to cure the blind.

Try the "Tao-Te-Ching" as it tells of winning-by-losing as a great way.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



TurboK9 said:


> Haha!  I differ in my opinion and so I am self righteous... LOL.  But then, yes, I do think I am a better parent.  Because I am parenting.  An absentee parent isn't much of a parent, by choice or not.  They simply are not doing the job.


  My point is that we need to assist the other parents to be better parents and stop the punishing of parents as we do now.

By slandering the parents and degrading the parents and stealing their money then the laws destroy the family unit and it makes the situation far worse then it needs to be.

Help parents and stop punishing parents as that is the key. 



TurboK9 said:


> How is that an answer to the question?


  Because the Child Support laws are in themselves wrong and abusive and not some small particulars within the Child Support laws.

Child Support is just stealing, and there is no proper way to steal.



TurboK9 said:


> Interesting that the court holds the same opinion of these people as I.


  The Court is only interpreting the law and it is not equating anything of truth or justice or right from wrong.

The Court itself is corrupted by those ignorant Child Support laws.



TurboK9 said:


> I especially like the one guy with 4 kids by 3 different women.  Nice.  What a winner!


   An alpha-male.



TurboK9 said:


> I don't know what YOUR definition of meager is, but I guarantee you the people on public assistance are well below the poverty line.  Now, if the child support exceeds the states aid for the childs needs, then yes, keeping it is wrong.  But, since a typical 2 bedroom apartment costs more than $500 a month alone, plus of course food, clothes, money, medical... very very few CS payments will ever exceed that.


  Public Assistance is given to the custodial and not to the children, just as Child Support is only given to the custodial and not to the children.

So Child Support is not to be equated in the custodial support - but it is being done that way and it distorts the reality.

Child Support is suppose to exceed the custodials' needs because it is said to be for the children and not to support the custodial.

So again the PA programs that takes the c/s shows the Child Support is a big pack of lies.



TurboK9 said:


> Not if that stuff is in someone elses name they won't, Mommy, girlfriend, etc.   Not if you jump state.  You aren't really that naive, are you?  Here we go with the righteousness again.  I don't think I'm any better than any other parent doing their best to support their kids.  Let me say it again, I only have a problem with those who willfully dodge.  Why would you even argue that?  See, that's what really blows my mind.  You are advocating for those who choose...CHOOSE to not financially support their children.  Yes.  I do think I'm a better parent than people who CHOOSE not to support their kids.  If that makes me self-righteous, so be it.


  No, all the children are all fine and provided to overflowing, what I say is that I agree with parents that refuse to pay the thieving Child Support because the Child Support does not support the children and it is immoral stolen money.



TurboK9 said:


> Here we go with the 'people like' me again...  Trust?  It's not a trust issue.  If you aren't taking care of your kids, you aren't a 'fellow parent'.  That's like calling my neighbor, who is a teacher, my fellow engineer.  You have to do it to be it.  Having a biological child does not make you a parent.  You have to raise it too.


   You are wrong in this regard, and the 2 biological parents are the child's only parents.

Everything else is untrue.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> Maybe you can hang out with all the other deadbeats after child support court.. and you can get their vote.


  I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.

It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them.

My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.

Of course when I do get elected as Governor then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.


----------



## kwillia

VoteJP said:


> I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.
> 
> It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but *I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them*.
> 
> *My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.*
> 
> Of course when I do get elected as Governor then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.


Quoted for the authorities to reference later...


----------



## godsbutterfly

You are wrong in this regard, and the 2 biological parents are the child's only parents.

Everything else is untrue.



__________________
SIGNATURE: 
JP for Maryland Governor, Link = Webs - Make a free website, get free hosting 

Speaking as a step-mother I don't agree with this. I am more involved in these kids lives than the mother who walked out on them will ever be and she has full access to them whenever she wants (wants being the operative word)!


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.
> 
> It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them.
> 
> My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.
> 
> Of course *when I do get elected as Governor* then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.



When exactly will that be?


----------



## Bay_Kat

kwillia said:


> Quoted for the authorities to reference later...



I'm glad you did, I wouldn't put it past that loon to carry out a threat like that. The man is crazy and I am not even worried about his silly ideas any more.  He'll never be governor, it's all a big joke to him, that's why he keeps saying no one gets the humor in anything, even he knows it won't happen and it's just a joke.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> I hear from "sources" that some of the police seem to have the idea that I am some how behind the phone bomb threats at the SMC Courthouse because it happens usually on each of the big Child Support processing days.
> 
> It is probably to be accepted as flattery to me since I am the most outspoken opponent of their thieving Child Support, but I am not the kind that makes baseless threats without fulfilling them.
> 
> My own perspective is that the wave of phone threats is only the first baby-steps for the coming rebellion against the dirty Child Support thieves.
> 
> Of course when I do get elected as Governor then I will completely stop the need for violent rebellion because after my election then I will put an end to the ignorance of Child Support.


 
 I wonder if this is public knowledge, I also wonder who his source is. Either a cop or the person planning this extracurricular activity.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



godsbutterfly said:


> Speaking as a step-mother I don't agree with this. I am more involved in these kids lives than the mother who walked out on them will ever be and she has full access to them whenever she wants (wants being the operative word)!


  Not really, since you have the custody then it is your job to see to it that the children "honor their father and their mother" and so if those kids dishonor their Mom then the sin is on you.

It does not matter if the real Mom wants it or not.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



mickinmd said:


> I am happy you were arrested.  I am happy you spent time in jail.  I am happy your life has been ruined by your attitude toward the support of your children.  I am saddened that your kids are having so many difficulties in life that I directly attribute to the pos you are.


 *And here is another vivid example;*

Looking at the old divorce case file of Marcia Clark (O.J. Simpson Trial Prosecutor).

He worked from home as an architect, earning 1/4 ($40,000) what she did ($180,000). He took care of the children at the same time. She thought this was demeaning to her and the children, so she filed for divorce and custody. She hired live in nannies to care for the children during her usual 16-hour days, 6-7 days a week. A part of his child support order was the cost of having the nannies.

After the Simpson Trial started, she filed for an increase in child support because of her increased cost for clothes, shoes, and makeup for appearing on camera.

And, IMO, the BIGGEST point in this account is that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she knew exactly what the Child Support represented and that was that the c/s was to pay for own clothing or anything she wanted and it had nothing to do with supporting her children.

And instead of having the father raising the kids the Court grants custody to Marcia Clark with her "nannies" and the father makes less than a fourth of her big money.

The law is corrupt and the Prosecution Attorney knew it exactly, and if we do not fight this crap now then our children will face it.


----------



## godsbutterfly

VoteJP said:


> Not really, since you have the custody then it is your job to see to it that the children "honor their father and their mother" and so if those kids dishonor their Mom then the sin is on you.
> 
> It does not matter if the real Mom wants it or not.



They would like to see her more but this is not what she wants. Do you not realize how hurt children are when their parent wants little or no contact with them?


----------



## eddy1

VoteJP said:


> *And here is another vivid example;*
> 
> Looking at the old divorce case file of Marcia Clark (O.J. Simpson Trial Prosecutor).
> 
> *He worked from home as an architect, earning 1/4 ($40,000) *what she did ($180,000). He took care of the children at the same time. She thought this was demeaning to her and the children, so she filed for divorce and custody. She hired live in nannies to care for the children during her usual 16-hour days, 6-7 days a week. A part of his child support order was the cost of having the nannies.
> 
> After the Simpson Trial started, she filed for an increase in child support because of her increased cost for clothes, shoes, and makeup for appearing on camera.
> 
> And, IMO, the BIGGEST point in this account is that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she knew exactly what the Child Support represented and that was that the c/s was to pay for own clothing or anything she wanted and it had nothing to do with supporting her children.
> 
> And instead of having the father raising the kids the Court grants custody to Marcia Clark with her "nannies" and the father makes less than a fourth of her big money.
> 
> The law is corrupt and the Prosecution Attorney knew it exactly, and if we do not fight this crap now then our children will face it.



You are not seriously posting a blog, not backed up by any proof, and trying to pass that off as fact are you?  Plus, your facts are absolutely wrong!  In 1980 she married Gordon Clark, a computer engineer and an executive in the Church of Scientology.  They divorced in 1994.  So you are not smart enough to print information that is factual, but you would have us vote for you?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



eddy1 said:


> You are not seriously posting a blog, not backed up by any proof, and trying to pass that off as fact are you?  Plus, your facts are absolutely wrong!  In 1980 she married Gordon Clark, a computer engineer and an executive in the Church of Scientology.  They divorced in 1994.  So you are not smart enough to print information that is factual, but you would have us vote for you?


   If you find some mix-up in the dates or occupation or money level or whatever you are referring to - well all of that is meaningless side-issue gibberish.

The point was and remains that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she sought after an increase in the Child Support to pay for her own new clothes and NOT to provide for the children. And as an Attorney she knew exactly what the Child Support laws were about and not about as this showed in her actions. 

And Child Support is that way nationwide and Child Support is still that way today - in that the Child Support is a lying fraud that pretends to help children when it does not.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



godsbutterfly said:


> They would like to see her more but this is not what she wants. Do you not realize how hurt children are when their parent wants little or no contact with them?


  Some how I do not accept that your interpretation speaks for her perspective or her feelings.

And I say you are stepping over the line is declaring what the children's Mom wants or does not want in their regard.


----------



## donbarzini

You are a f#cking moron.


----------



## eddy1

VoteJP said:


> The point was and remains that Marcia Clark was a Prosecution Attorney and she sought after an increase in the Child Support to pay for her own new clothes and NOT to provide for the children.



Where are you getting your information?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



eddy1 said:


> Where are you getting your information?


  There is a link in the posting I made and the "blue" text is a quote from the above link, see it there.

But just FYI, here are a couple more links that discuss the same issue;

1) April 1995: The Backlash! Marcia Clark

2) Putting Working Moms In Custody | Newsweek | = see the last paragraph particularly.

And I was around at the time of the O.J. trial and I very much remember when Ms. prosecution Attorney demanded more Child Support to buy her self some new clothing, so I know of the event myself, and Child Support is a complete fraud.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> Spend a day at court when they are hearing child support cases... you will hear how hard it is for hundreds of deadbeat parents... both mothers and fathers. It's' really pathetic. You will see deadbeats who owe anywhere from a couple hundred to over a 100K. You will also see stupid women standing there with their deadbeat boyfriends/husbands. I guess they are proud to be standing by their man. I just think how stupid they are. Especially when they are pregnant.. umm hello the deadbeat doesn't support the kid or kids he already has. Do you think he will support yours?


  You physically see "how hard" it is and how the Court claim "100K" and the parents have their families their in support, and even after seeing it with your own eyes you call them "stupid" but it is you that are blind stupid.

Your lies mean nothing in the real life equations except as more ignorant slander spewed out against parents and families that can not afford to pay the Child Support thieves.

The "pathetic" thing is to have eyes that can not see the truth, and ears that do not hear the truth, and a heart that does not understand the truth.
Link.


----------



## eddy1

VoteJP said:


> There is a link in the posting I made and the "blue" text is a quote from the above link, see it there.
> 
> But just FYI, here are a couple more links that discuss the same issue;
> 
> 1) April 1995: The Backlash! Marcia Clark
> 
> 2) Putting Working Moms In Custody | Newsweek | = see the last paragraph particularly.
> 
> And I was around at the time of the O.J. trial and I very much remember when Ms. prosecution Attorney demanded more Child Support to buy her self some new clothing, so I know of the event myself, and Child Support is a complete fraud.



Maybe reading isn't your strong point.  She was not asking for MORE child support, but only asking that the original child support amount be reinstated.  Also, the distorted information you put up earlier was incorrect.  He was not a work from home person.  This is obvious slanted dribble was written to confuse the issue.  She was asking for him to contribute his fair share.  Something you know knothing about, because you chose to go to jail rather than pay yours.  How did that work out for your children?  Are they well adjusted law abiding people?


----------



## LusbyMom

eddy1 said:


> Maybe reading isn't your strong point.  She was not asking for MORE child support, but only asking that the original child support amount be reinstated.  Also, the distorted information you put up earlier was incorrect.  He was not a work from home person.  This is obvious slanted dribble was written to confuse the issue.  She was asking for him to contribute his fair share.  Something you know knothing about, because you chose to go to jail rather than pay yours.  How did that work out for your children?  Are they well adjusted law abiding people?



Isn't his kid a deadbeat who tried to get out of supporting his kid too?


----------



## LusbyMom

godsbutterfly said:


> They would like to see her more but this is not what she wants. Do you not realize how hurt children are when their parent wants little or no contact with them?



It's really sad when a parent does that to their child. They don't understand the hurt they are causing. A child should never feel unwanted.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



eddy1 said:


> Maybe reading isn't your strong point.  She was not asking for MORE child support, but only asking that the original child support amount be reinstated.  Also, the distorted information you put up earlier was incorrect.  He was not a work from home person.  This is obvious slanted dribble was written to confuse the issue.  She was asking for him to contribute his fair share.  Something you know knothing about, because you chose to go to jail rather than pay yours.


  The original link does appear to have those mistakes in it but the bottom line that she was an Attorney that knew the law, and she made far more money than the father, and she wanted more Child Support to buy her own clothing, are all true and correct accounts of Marcia the Prosecutor.

And your claim that she was ONLY asking some "fair share" is not true, and the link from Newsweek with particularly that last paragraph is more true than your pretended claim. She wanted an unjust share and nothing was "fair" about it.

As to your last sentence above - I do say that going to jail in defiance of the Child Support thievery is far more morally fitting and proper rather than to pay the c/s thieves.



eddy1 said:


> How did that work out for your children?  Are they well adjusted law abiding people?


  No, it did not work out well with my son, but that had nothing at all to do with Child Support being paid or not.

And my son does not share my opinions and beliefs, but if some future day I hear of him spray painting some Child Support thieves building then I will become very proud indeed.

We parents live on our hopes and dreams.


----------



## eddy1

LusbyMom said:


> Isn't his kid a deadbeat who tried to get out of supporting his kid too?



I don't know, but I wouldn't blame the kid.  He has never had any sort of man to show him what a man is supposed to be, therefore how could he act accordingly?


----------



## Bay_Kat

So, let me get this straight.  Anyone can run for governor.

Doesn't matter if he's an ex con and actually proud of the crime he committed (which was against the state he's running in).  A non law abiding person (driving his vehicle illegally with historice tags) who may now be behind bomb threats to the court house and has actually said he would not just make threats, but carry them through.  I think this is an insult to the state of Maryland to let a person like this run for governor even though there isn't a snowball's chance he'll actually win.


----------



## LusbyMom

eddy1 said:


> I don't know, but I wouldn't blame the kid.  He has never had any sort of man to show him what a man is supposed to be, therefore how could he act accordingly?



Check out md judiciary... first his son asked for a paternity test.. then he has a couple contempt charges for non support.. because he didn't have a job yet. Yeah he is following in his daddy's footsteps


----------



## Bay_Kat

Oh I forgot, he can also be so disabled that he's already saying that his secretaries and assistants will be doing most of the work for him. Yep, this is the kind of governor Maryland needs.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> They can't afford it because they don't get off their lazy asses and get a job. Or if they have a job they are selfish and give nothing for their child.
> 
> What doesn't work is the system that allows a parent to get thousands and thousands of dollars behind.
> 
> Let me tell you I have had at least 18 court dates in 3 years because I deal with a deadbeat. That's a bunch of crap and a bunch of wasted money for court date after court date.Who's money is being wasted?  The system does need to be fixed... it needs to not let these deadbeats play the system and have harsher punishments for deadbeat parents who choose NOT to support their children


  Obviously your perspective is in the fact that you want the State to steal more Child Support so that you can get more loot for your self.

You are one that has a baby's Dad that actually shows up to Court, that father is one trying to do right, he is a father trying to work with the law even with a baby's Mom like you demanding more money and to collect it any way that gets your self more of the loot.

If I could talk to that father then I would tell him to follow a better way.

I sincerely believe that it is God that will punish your kind of a brat.

The Child Support reminds me of the old Salem witch trials where a bunch of rotten brats cried and screamed and the law hung people as witches instead of disciplining the bratty children.

Instead of "WITCHES" the brats are now saying "deadbeats" "deadbeats" and most people believe the lies.

And today we know those Salem witch kids were all liars that cried and screamed for their own hateful intentions, just like "LusbyMom" does too.


----------



## Bay_Kat

VoteJP said:


> Obviously your perspective is in the fact that you want the State to steal more Child Support so that you can get more loot for your self.
> 
> You are one that has a baby's Dad *that actually shows up to Court, that father is one trying to do right, he is a father trying to work with the law *even with a baby's Mom like you demanding more money and to collect it any way that gets your self more of the loot.
> 
> If I could talk to that father then I would tell him to follow a better way.
> 
> I sincerely believe that it is God that will punish your kind of a brat.
> 
> The Child Support reminds me of the old Salem witch trials where a bunch of rotten brats cried and screamed and the law hung people as witches instead of disciplining the bratty children.
> 
> Instead of "WITCHES" the brats are now saying "deadbeats" "deadbeats" and most people believe the lies.
> 
> And today we know those Salem witch kids were all liars that cried and screamed for their own hateful intentions, just like "LusbyMom" does too.



Ahhhhhhhh, so you just admitted it's the right thing to do.  You truly are a moron.


----------



## eddy1

VoteJP said:


> that father is one trying to do right, he is a father trying to work with the law



Did you do the right thing?  Did you support your child financially at all?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Bay_Kat said:


> Ahhhhhhhh, so you just admitted it's the right thing to do.  You truly are a moron.


   It is right to trust the Courts and to obey the laws - and I too went to the Child Support Court to do my duty and I do believe most if not all parents do go at least one time.

It is the Court and the law that has betrayed us. They are the ones that have turned into criminal thieves. 

My own belief is that parents need to do as I finally did and yes go to Court because it is right, and then tell the Judge or Court master that we refuse to pay the dirty thieves and then rightly go to jail as civil disobedience to fight the law and in an attempt to right the law.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> Steal more money?  The order has been the same for 12 years  I could have had it raised NUMEROUS times but I never have. Believe me the amount he is ordered to pay is small and well below what it should be. I surely am not living off of it and buying stuff for myself.
> 
> I can tell you the ONLY reason he shows up is because he is SCARED of jail. So he plays the system and pays a little here and a little there. Just enough to keep him out of jail. I assure you he isn't poor and has plenty of money to pay it. He chooses not to because like you he is ignorant and thinks of it as supporting me when the reality is it doesn't even cover my car payment


   That sounds like he is doing okay than, as I like the parents that show up and play the thieves for fools.

And he surely has no reason at all to give Child Support for your car payments.

When I become Governor than he and you both will see justice - and rightly so.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



eddy1 said:


> Did you do the right thing?  Did you support your child financially at all?


  My son and his Mom had everything they needed financially to overflowing.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with the Child Support being paid or not.


----------



## Bay_Kat

VoteJP said:


> My son and his Mom had everything they needed financially to overflowing.
> 
> And that had absolutely nothing to do with the Child Support being paid or not.



Let me guess, they got help from churches, charities and other family members.  Pssssst, JP in case you haven't noticed the economy is crap right now and the churches are pretty much broke and no one really has extra money to give to charities.  This actually shouldn't matter since it's the father's responsibility to take care of the kid.


----------



## MMDad

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,014,403 in Books


----------



## eddy1

VoteJP said:


> My son and his Mom had everything they needed financially to overflowing.
> 
> And that had absolutely nothing to do with the Child Support being paid or not.



That did not answer the simple question, did you support your child financially?


----------



## bcp

Bay_Kat said:


> Let me guess, they got help from churches, charities and other family members. Pssssst, JP in case you haven't noticed the economy is crap right now and the churches are pretty much broke and no one really has extra money to give to charities. This actually shouldn't matter since it's the father's responsibility to take care of the kid.


No she remarried to someone that made a decent living from what I think I understand.
 Now, on JPs behalf I will say this.
 there does come a point where they are taking enough money to leave the father or who ever pays the support that there is not enough for them to live on. 
 This part of it does seem wrong when the courts can see that the mother/child are not financially destitute.
 But, the father should still have to pay something toward the childs future, college, clothes etc...


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



			
				LusbyMom said:
			
		

> I guess you didn't understand. Like you he thinks that he is supporting me. Sorry but no one can live off the measly amount he is ordered to pay. I don't expect nor want him to pay my car payment, I do that fine on my own as I do work more than full time. I do expect him to pay child support which is for the child.


  See the father knows the Child Support is just paying you off and it is not supporting the children.

And the children already have all of their needs filled completely.

But your car payment is not fulfilled and you saying the Child Support is for the children is not true.

You live in lies and it is God that will punish your kind.



			
				LusbyMom said:
			
		

> You will never become Governor


  You better hope and pray that I do, because I will remove your guilt even though you have not the integrity to do it for your self.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



eddy1 said:


> That did not answer the simple question, did you support your child financially?


  It really is not a simple question, as it is twisted and perverted where you want to mislead things.

And the Child Support issue is not about me personally or about my own case as you and others try to make it.

But just out of my own regard (and not yours) I answer and say my "child" was indeed overwhelmingly financially supported and some of the financing came from me and some from others.

I am completely content with my own participation in that financial regard, and beyond that it really is no one else's business.


----------



## Bay_Kat

VoteJP said:


> It really is not a simple question, as it is twisted and perverted where you want to mislead things.
> 
> And the Child Support issue is not about me personally or about my own case as you and others try to make it.
> 
> But just out of my own regard (and not yours) I answer and say my "child" was indeed overwhelmingly financially supported and some of the financing came from me and some from others.
> 
> I am completely content with my own participation in that financial regard, and beyond that it really is no one else's business.



I didn't see where it was twisted or perverted, it was a simple question.  When anything concerning you're personal issues come up, then you always say it's not about you.  You should just stop wasting time and get a job.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> See the father knows the Child Support is just paying you off and it is not supporting the children.
> 
> And the children already have all of their needs filled completely.
> 
> But your car payment is not fulfilled and you saying the Child Support is for the children is not true.
> 
> You live in lies and it is God that will punish your kind.
> 
> 
> You better hope and pray that I do, because I will remove your guilt even though you have not the integrity to do it for your self.



Say what you will because I am not posting all my personal info on the internet. I know the truth. I pay my car payment and I support my child. Unlike a deadbeat I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what it takes. I go without before my child ever will.

God won't punish me I am an atheist


----------



## bcp

LusbyMom said:


> Say what you will because I am not posting all my personal info on the internet. I know the truth. I pay my car payment and I support my child. Unlike a deadbeat I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what it takes. I go without before my child ever will.
> 
> *God won't punish me I am an atheist*


 going to hell, going to hell going to hell


----------



## godsbutterfly

VoteJP said:


> Some how I do not accept that your interpretation speaks for her perspective or her feelings.
> 
> And I say you are stepping over the line is declaring what the children's Mom wants or does not want in their regard.



I have overstepped nothing. We have the children with us and she is 2 minutes down the road. All she has to do is call the kids and they are available to her when she follows thru on what she says (unless they have a school activity or have plans with a friend) and she knows that. She walked out 4 years ago and left her children hurt and confused. Those are the facts.

Additionally I was referring to how hurt my own children were when their father ignored them so now try telling me I don't know about that situation either.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> Say what you will because I am not posting all my personal info on the internet. I know the truth. I pay my car payment and I support my child. Unlike a deadbeat I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what it takes. I go without before my child ever will.


   That is big talk except you are not going without anything.

In fact you expect your children's Dad to go without just to give your self some extra cash and car payments and you do not even need the Child support money but you demand it anyway. 

And what the children really need is their parents in a marriage union and not Mommy pretending to be single and shirking her duties to her husband.



LusbyMom said:


> God won't punish me I am an atheist


  I do believe you are an atheist because any moral system would denounce you.

And God is not some thing where we can deny it and it goes away.

Just like denying stealing and stolen money does not make it clean or right.

And surely you must be raising the children to be heathen Atheist too, because otherwise the kiddies will see Mommy for what Mommy does. Of course my own belief is that the children always see the truth whether the parents live or teach them the truth or not.

So now are you teaching the children to get married or to just have babies? 

And are you telling the boy to watch out for girls like his Mommy?

And are you telling the girl to find a rich baby-daddy?

Since being an Atheist you do not have to follow the old rules of right and wrong.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



bcp said:


> going to hell, going to hell going to hell


   No, there is no HELL and I surely do not mean any punishment after death -no.

God punishes people here and now as we each "reap what we sow".

This world and this life is quite cruel enough without having a Hell after death.

And in the end everyone gets saved as Jesus paid the price for everyone.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



godsbutterfly said:


> I have overstepped nothing. We have the children with us and she is 2 minutes down the road. All she has to do is call the kids and they are available to her when she follows thru on what she says (unless they have a school activity or have plans with a friend) and she knows that. She walked out 4 years ago and left her children hurt and confused. Those are the facts.
> 
> Additionally I was referring to how hurt my own children were when their father ignored them so now try telling me I don't know about that situation either.


  What I am saying is that it is a part of the job of having "custody" to see to it that the children honor, respect, communicate and visit with their separated parent(s).

If the step children fail in this to their Mom then it is your (the custodial) fault and it is your sin.

And if your own children fail in that to their separated father then you are at fault and you failed to provide the custody correctly and again it is a sin of your own.


----------



## Retread

*Jpc*

What if a child's father has dutifully paid child support for a few years but then decides to live with another woman and support her and her child instead of his own.


----------



## LusbyMom

Retread said:


> What if a child's father has dutifully paid child support for a few years but then decides to live with another woman and support her and her child instead of his own.



 That cracks me up! Same situation here and he has even told the judge that he has stepkids to support and that's why he has no money.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> That is big talk except you are not going without anything.Really? And you know this how? Because I know that I don't do for myself so that I can give my children everything they need. It isn't cheap to raise a child. On top of the everyday expenses then you add in all the extras like sports and braces and clothes they outgrow constantly, the list is endless
> 
> In fact you expect your children's Dad to go without just to give your self some extra cash and car payments and you do not even need the Child support money but you demand it anyway.
> I assure you he doesn't go without anything. He is all about himself and his new family. Extra cash? When you have kids their is no extra cash. Did you miss the part where I said I work MORE THAN FULLTIME. I support myself and my child 100%
> 
> 
> And what the children really need is their parents in a marriage union and not Mommy pretending to be single and shirking her duties to her husband.
> I don't pretend to be single you moron I am actually married. I am just not married to my child's father anymore.  He is the one shirking his duties to my child.
> 
> 
> I do believe you are an atheist because any moral system would denounce you.
> 
> And God is not some thing where we can deny it and it goes away.
> You can't deny something that doesn't exist
> 
> 
> Just like denying stealing and stolen money does not make it clean or right.
> 
> And surely you must be raising the children to be heathen Atheist too, because otherwise the kiddies will see Mommy for what Mommy does. Of course my own belief is that the children always see the truth whether the parents live or teach them the truth or not.
> You are right children always see the truth and my child will know the truth and will always know who was the parent who was always there and who they could always depend on. My child will see who choose not to be around. Just because parents are divorced does not mean that they can't both parent.
> 
> 
> So now are you teaching the children to get married or to just have babies?
> 
> And are you telling the boy to watch out for girls like his Mommy?
> 
> And are you telling the girl to find a rich baby-daddy?
> 
> Why would I teach them to just have babies? My children will be taught to take care of their own. Not shirk their responsibilities
> 
> Since being an Atheist you do not have to follow the old rules of right and wrong.
> I don't need a bible to tell me what is right or what is wrong. It is right to take care of your child. PERIOD.



I can't wait to vote for your opponent


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> What I am saying is that it is a part of the job of having "custody" to see to it that the children honor, respect, communicate and visit with their separated parent(s).
> 
> If the step children fail in this to their Mom then it is your (the custodial) fault and it is your sin.
> 
> And if your own children fail in that to their separated father then you are at fault and you failed to provide the custody correctly and again it is a sin of your own.



*You are putting the responsibilty of visitation on the child and the CP??? What happens when you have a parent that could care less about picking up their kid and spending time with them? What happens when the NCP is wrapped up in their own life and doesn't want to be bothered with the kid? You can teach your child to respect their parent but you can't make their parent respect them. *


----------



## godsbutterfly

LusbyMom said:


> *You are putting the responsibilty of visitation on the child and the CP??? What happens when you have a parent that could care less about picking up their kid and spending time with them? What happens when the NCP is wrapped up in their own life and doesn't want to be bothered with the kid? You can teach your child to respect their parent but you can't make their parent respect them. *



There is also much to be said for respecting the title but not how the person is acting! I would say JCP needs to worry about his own shortcomings and not those of others!


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Retread said:


> What if a child's father has dutifully paid child support for a few years but then decides to live with another woman and support her and her child instead of his own.


  What that really means is the father has two wives.

And just because the law grants a legal divorce does not make it true.

The parents are still married and just pretending their not married based on our immoral laws.

The 2 parents are legally divorced but still morally married, and just living in lies.

And I would object to the father (or mother) paying the Child Support because it is morally wrong to pay a thief. Of course if the law is physically stealing the money as the Child Support system does then that is not willingly paying the thieves as that is just getting legally robbed.

So if the parent (Mom or Dad) goes live with another family then wherever they happen to be surely is their first and foremost duty.

And the other children already have everything they need to overflowing so there is no real demand or obligation to give them any more or any extras unless one wants to do so.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> *You are putting the responsibility of visitation on the child and the CP??? *


  Yes, that is a part of the job of custody to give the children all that the children need and the biggest need of any child is to preserve their connection to their separated parent.

And I do know that most custodials fail in this regard and the sin belongs to those custodials.



LusbyMom said:


> *
> 
> What happens when you have a parent that could care less about picking up their kid and spending time with them? What happens when the NCP is wrapped up in their own life and doesn't want to be bothered with the kid? *


  That happens ONLY because of the uncooperative or incompetent custodials and it is always wrong to blame it on the separated parents.

That slander is just to falsely justify the custodial's wrongdoing.

The separated parents are not to be "bothered" by their own kids and that not-bothering is the job of the custodial. The custodial is to find the right way of making it work or else it is a failure of custody.



LusbyMom said:


> *
> 
> You can teach your child to respect their parent but you can't make their parent respect them. *


  The children must be taught to do far more than just respect their parents, and it is the job of custody to raise the children correctly.

And it was wrong to be giving the custody to parents that shirk the duties of the job.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Yes, that is a part of the job of custody to give the children all that the children need and the biggest need of any child is to preserve their connection to their separated parent.
> 
> And I do know that most custodials fail in this regard and the sin belongs to those custodials.
> 
> 
> That happens ONLY because of the uncooperative or incompetent custodials and it is always wrong to blame it on the separated parents.
> 
> That slander is just to falsely justify the custodial's wrongdoing.
> 
> The separated parents are not to be "bothered" by their own kids and that not-bothering is the job of the custodial. The custodial is to find the right way of making it work or else it is a failure of custody.
> 
> 
> The children must be taught to do far more than just respect their parents, and it is the job of custody to raise the children correctly.
> 
> And it was wrong to be giving the custody to parents that shirk the duties of the job.




A NCP is busy... raising another family... partying... working or whatever and doesn't want to see their children and that is the CP's fault? I know alot of divorced couples.. and many of them can work together for their children. It is sad that not all parents can do that. But some parents just don't care enough. The end result is an innocent child is hurt by a worthless parent and no child deserves that. The ONLY person you can blame is the parent who has made no effort to be a part of their child's life. We are each responsible for our own actions. 

You truly are insane and it really disgusts me that someone like you can even run for office.


----------



## donbarzini

You moronic piece of semi-human detritus(I'll wait while you look 'em up).......................got it? OK, here goes. I've finally figured out how I want you to die. We go to the Maryland Support Enforcement Unit. Find the 4 women who are owed the most money, give them each a Dodge Ram 1500 with a chain on the bumper.  Then attach a chain to each one of your useless appendages. Then let 'er rip ladies!!!!! Then we immediately cauterize the wounds so you live. Then we tie a weight around your torso and dump you in the Bay with scuba gear so you can breathe while the crabs feast on what's left of you. If they're willing to eat something so full of sh!t


----------



## LusbyMom

donbarzini said:


> You moronic piece of semi-human detritus(I'll wait while you look 'em up).......................got it? OK, here goes. I've finally figured out how I want you to die. We go to the Maryland Support Enforcement Unit. Find the 4 women who are owed the most money, give them each a Dodge Ram 1500 with a chain on the bumper.  Then attach a chain to each one of your useless appendages. Then let 'er rip ladies!!!!! Then we immediately cauterize the wounds so you live. Then we tie a weight around your torso and dump you in the Bay with scuba gear so you can breathe while the crabs feast on what's left of you. If they're willing to eat something so full of sh!t



 

I am


----------



## Beta84

donbarzini said:


> You moronic piece of semi-human detritus(I'll wait while you look 'em up).......................got it? OK, here goes. I've finally figured out how I want you to die. We go to the Maryland Support Enforcement Unit. Find the 4 women who are owed the most money, give them each a Dodge Ram 1500 with a chain on the bumper.  Then attach a chain to each one of your useless appendages. Then let 'er rip ladies!!!!! Then we immediately cauterize the wounds so you live. Then we tie a weight around your torso and dump you in the Bay with scuba gear so you can breathe while the crabs feast on what's left of you. If they're willing to eat something so full of sh!t





he is pretty useless isn't he


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That happens ONLY because of the uncooperative or incompetent custodials and it is always wrong to blame it on the separated parents.


So you are, in effect, blaming your ex-wife for not allowing (or forcing) little Jimmy to see you when you ran away out West somewhere.  How was she supposed to track you down when you were leading a vagabond life of traveling, partying and dating various women?  And what kind of environment would that have exposed little Jimmy to if he had been there?

I'm sure you'll come up with _some_ way to excuse those things, or even to explain how having little Jimmy see his daddy living like a reckless gigolo would have been positive for him.


----------



## hvp05

As a reminder of things you have said, Jimmy, here is a little gem you posted a couple years back (probably during your first failed campaign run):  





			
				JPC sr said:
			
		

> When I first separated I paid all the bills as she stayed in our house and that was rediculous as it was like I just was not home, so then I stopped and she would not file for divorce or for child support so again it was unacceptable, then it was thought that they could live off the family or the gov if need be, but since there was property and credit available then the time restraints became a problem, so *I deserted to let them figure it out*.


I know other good ones are out there, but I don't care to search for a long time to find them.  I don't think they're that necessary anyhow.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> A NCP is busy... raising another family... partying... working or whatever and doesn't want to see their children and that is the CP's fault? I know alot of divorced couples.. and many of them can work together for their children. It is sad that not all parents can do that. But some parents just don't care enough. The end result is an innocent child is hurt by a worthless parent and no child deserves that. The ONLY person you can blame is the parent who has made no effort to be a part of their child's life. We are each responsible for our own actions.


   My point remains true that the job of custody includes providing healthy interaction of the children with their separated parent(s), and if it is not completed then it is the failure of the custodial.

Just like the custodial is to get the children through High School and even into College and if the child does not graduate High School then the custodial has failed in that regard. 

There are many reasons why a child might not get a High School diploma or why the child might not go through college but it is still a part of the job of providing custody and the child coming up short means the custody provider failed in their duty.

So blaming it on the separated parent is a cop-out and it is always the custodial that must do the job as custody or they have no business having the custody in the first place.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



hvp05 said:


> As a reminder of things you have said, Jimmy, here is a little gem you posted a couple years back (probably during your first failed campaign run):  I know other good ones are out there, but I don't care to search for a long time to find them.  I don't think they're that necessary anyhow.


 To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.

No one ever "deserted" me in such a well-off condition.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.
> 
> No one ever "deserted" me in such a well-off condition.



From the sound of things they didn'ty have to... seems you left of your own free will.  

Here's one for the CP responsibilities issue....  

What if the NCP was molesting the child and thus the reason for the CP having custody...  Is the CP still supposed to force visitation upon the child?  

What if the NCP is guilty of habitual spousal battery / child abuse?  Is child abuse a form of 'parenting' and thus nobody elses business in your mind?

Not every divorce  / seperation is a case of simple "I/we don't wish to be together anymore".  Sometimes the NCP is a bonafide danger to the child, emotionally and/or physically.

Where do you draw the 'honor they mother/father' line, or do you draw a line at all?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.


See, this is the only positive gleaned from communicating with you, that the more you put your views out there the more people can see how warped you are.  That you wish to bring your ideas of deserting children (not to mention custodial parents) to the State House could potentially be horrifying - if anyone (besides you) thought there was the slightest chance you'd win.


----------



## hvp05

TurboK9 said:


> What if the NCP is guilty of habitual spousal battery / child abuse?  Is child abuse a form of 'parenting' and thus nobody elses business in your mind?


That is what I was touching on in #163, where, to use his line of 'thought', little Jimmy would have been forced to visit big Jimmy during his drunken party days.  He doesn't seem to have an answer for me, but perhaps he will for you.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> My point remains true that the job of custody includes providing healthy interaction of the children with their separated parent(s), and if it is not completed then it is the failure of the custodial.


The non-custodial has no responsibility to actually be there?





> Just like the custodial is to get the children through High School and even into College and if the child does not graduate High School then the custodial has failed in that regard.


This implies the non-custodial has no impact on the child's life.  Is that what you think?





> There are many reasons why a child might not get a High School diploma or why the child might not go through college but it is still a part of the job of providing custody and the child coming up short means the custody provider failed in their duty.
> 
> So blaming it on the separated parent is a cop-out and it is always the custodial that must do the job as custody or they have no business having the custody in the first place.


What role does the NCP have in the child's life, then?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> To get "deserted" with property and resources a plenty is a fairly nice way of being "deserted" in my perspective.
> 
> No one ever "deserted" me in such a well-off condition.


So, a few bills paid can replace you as a parent?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



TurboK9 said:


> From the sound of things they didn'ty have to... seems you left of your own free will.


   It is always far more complicated then things sound.

Like the old saying: Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose ...



TurboK9 said:


> Here's one for the CP responsibilities issue....
> 
> What if the NCP was molesting the child and thus the reason for the CP having custody...  Is the CP still supposed to force visitation upon the child?


  First, it is very rare for a parent to molest their own children excluding severe mental illness which is a different type of case. Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.

Blaming a parent is common but it is usually the step-parents that do it. And it is common for a molester to be called the child's parent when it is not true.

So in the few cases where there is verified molestation (not just slander) then the children still need to know who their parents are and what happened and know how to communicate with the parent and need to be provided a safe and healthy way of doing so.

And I never said about "forcing" visitations even in the best of situations or divorces. The custodial is to implement the visitation or communications without force or else it is a failure of custody. 



TurboK9 said:


> What if the NCP is guilty of habitual spousal battery / child abuse?  Is child abuse a form of 'parenting' and thus nobody else's business in your mind?


   Of course any case of physical violence must be dealt with differently then just a divorce or separation.

And physical violence is an actual crime which requires due process of law.

And if a violent parent (being Mom or Dad) does leave the mate, then there is no logic in having the law chase down that violent parent and start stealing the parent's money as Child Support and denying visitation and expecting a happy ending - not by my logic. 



TurboK9 said:


> Not every divorce  / seperation is a case of simple "I/we don't wish to be together anymore".  Sometimes the NCP is a bonafide danger to the child, emotionally and/or physically.


  Like I said above - it is very rare that a real parent is a danger to their own children.

We see reports of parents killing themselves and their ex and their children but that is all reported after the law has already made it known that the law provides easy divorces and kidnapping type of custody orders and debilitating Child Support demands.

It is like pocking a trapped animal with a stick and then accusing the animal of being "mad" and dangerous.

If we want to be true then we must look at the provocations against parents.



TurboK9 said:


> Where do you draw the 'honor they mother/father' line, or do you draw a line at all?


 There is no line in "honor", and even if the parent is un-liked or separated or even dead then the children still have a duty to their real parents and any custodial that does not honor that has failed in properly providing the custody.

The ongoing idea that the custodial can live off of money stolen from the separated parent and then slander the separated parent with their name calling and their lies is just raising the children in an unhealthy and unproductive way.

In a case like "LusbyMom" where she is raising the children as Godless Heathens and alienated their Dad and shirking her duty and trying to get their Dad put into jail, and on and on for over 12 years, then that kind of "custody" was a mistake to put onto the children.

It is our twisted and misguided laws that empower the break-up of families.


----------



## Bay_Kat

JP you are such a joke, stay off the internet and get a job.  You are such a waste to society.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



This_person said:


> So, a few bills paid can replace you as a parent?


  My old buddy-pal T_p, see how all goes right back as if the last 2 years were nothing as time plays tricks on humanity?

As to your question above - of course bills paid NEVER never replaces a parent, and that is my own sincere objection to the thieving Child Support.

There is a false claim that a separated parent must pay the Child Support cash as if that were their parental duty and it is not. 

It is the thieves of Child Support that give the false pretense that cash money replaces the parents and I want us all to defy that lie.


----------



## Bay_Kat

VoteJP said:


> My old buddy-pal T_p, see how all goes right back as if the last 2 years were nothing as time plays tricks on humanity?
> 
> As to your question above - of course bills paid NEVER never replaces a parent, and that is my own sincere objection to the thieving Child Support.
> 
> There is a false claim that a separated parent must pay the Child Support cash as if that were their parental duty and it is not.
> 
> It is the thieves of Child Support that give the false pretense that cash money replaces the parents and I want us all to defy that lie.



Sounds like you need another drink, your big red nose is a dead give away


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> :  First, it is *very rare for a parent to molest their own children* excluding severe mental illness which is a different type of case. Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.
> 
> It's rare??? Where did you get that info?
> Blaming a parent is common but it is usually the step-parents that do it. And it is common for a molester to be called the child's parent when it is not true.
> 
> So in the few cases where there is verified molestation (not just slander) then the children still need to know who their parents are and what happened and know how to communicate with the parent and need to be provided a safe and healthy way of doing so.
> 
> And I never said about "forcing" visitations even in the best of situations or divorces. The custodial is to implement the visitation or communications without force or else it is a failure of custody.
> 
> 
> Of course any case of physical violence must be dealt with differently then just a divorce or separation.
> 
> And physical violence is an actual crime which requires due process of law.
> 
> And if a violent parent (being Mom or Dad) does leave the mate, then there is no logic in having the law chase down that violent parent and start stealing the parent's money as Child Support and denying visitation and expecting a happy ending - not by my logic.
> 
> 
> Like I said above - it is very rare that a real parent is a danger to their own children.
> 
> We see reports of parents killing themselves and their ex and their children but that is all reported after the law has already made it known that the law provides easy divorces and kidnapping type of custody orders and debilitating Child Support demands.
> 
> It is like pocking a trapped animal with a stick and then accusing the animal of being "mad" and dangerous.
> 
> If we want to be true then we must look at the provocations against parents.
> 
> 
> There is no line in "honor", and even if the parent is un-liked or separated or even dead then the *children still have a duty to their real parents* and any custodial that does not honor that has failed in properly providing the custody.
> 
> *The children have a duty to their parents but a NCP doesn't have a duty to support that child? *
> 
> The ongoing idea that the custodial can live off of money stolen from the separated parent and then slander the separated parent with their name calling and their lies is just raising the children in an unhealthy and unproductive way.
> 
> In a case like "LusbyMom" where she is raising the children as Godless Heathens and alienated their Dad and shirking her duty and trying to get their Dad put into jail, and on and on for over 12 years, then that kind of "custody" was a mistake to put onto the children.
> 
> *How exactly have I alienated the father? Even thought he is a deadbeat he still gets his visitation. And I would like to know where I said that I have been trying to get him put in jail over and over for 12 years. He paid his child support each and every month until he remarried a few years ago. That is when he decided he shouldn't pay child support anymore and he needed to support his stepchildren instead.  Godless heathens?   My morals are 100 times better than yours will ever be. YOU are the one who walked out on your child. YOU are the one who thinks everyone owes the NCP something. You are the one who should be a looney bin. *
> 
> It is our twisted and misguided laws that empower the break-up of families.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.


I suspect that some of the folks who happen to be step-parents and have previously given up trying to talk civilly with you are about to come back and kick your ass again.   



> So in the few cases where there is verified molestation (not just slander) then the children still need to know who their parents are and what happened and know how to communicate with the parent and need to be provided a safe and healthy way of doing so.


So *even when* the parent is a proven danger to their child, they should retain unfettered visitation rights... in a "healthy" way.  I guess that question asking if you draw a line has been answered; the NCP could be the most vile, unscrupulous piece of trash to walk the earth and you would still want them to have access to their child.

I hope Jimmy Jr. does not allow his daughter to visit you, because you are a danger to ALL children.



> And I never said about "forcing" visitations even in the best of situations or divorces. The custodial is to implement the visitation or communications without force or else it is a failure of custody.


I often think the definitions you have for words are not the same as everyone else; this is one of those times.  For there is no other way to label what you have previously described as "providing visitation" other than "forcing".

I do wonder why you can not admit that you are saying your ex-wife is to blame for not forcing Jimmy Jr. to see you when you ran out West.  You also did not answer whether you think that would have been a positive environment for little Jimmy to be in - partying, drinking, different women coming around - when you have admitted to now regretting doing some of those things.  Maybe that's why you won't answer, eh.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> First, it is very rare for a parent to molest their own children excluding severe mental illness which is a different type of case. Usually it is the step-parents that abuse the child(ren) by mental and or physical abuses including molesting.
> 
> Blaming a parent is common but it is usually the step-parents that do it. And it is common for a molester to be called the child's parent when it is not true.



Seriously?  Wow, get an education... 



> Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13][14][15] Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.[11] Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls.[11][12][16] Most offenders who abuse pre-pubescent children are pedophiles,[17][18] however a small percentage do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.[19]




Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Completed cited with reliable sources by the way.

Apaprently the instances of abuse by step parents are too few to mention...  Not the other way around, as you claim.  You have a funny definition of 'rare'.

I'm not responding to the rest... it's obvious you just make up 'facts' as you see fit.


----------



## Bay_Kat

I guarantee that if all voters read his threads and postings, JP would not get one vote.


----------



## hvp05

TurboK9 said:


> it's obvious you just make up 'facts' as you see fit.


Exactly.  He has had countless links and external resources provided to him, all proving him wrong, but he persists because he believes his own experiences and perception foremost.  That, in turn, makes him a bold-faced liar because he knows the facts oppose him.

As I said before, he will not shut up, but at least potential voters can see his lunacy and know to steer clear of him.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



TurboK9 said:


> Seriously?  Wow, get an education...
> 
> Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Completed cited with reliable sources by the way.
> 
> Apaprently the instances of abuse by step parents are too few to mention...  Not the other way around, as you claim.  You have a funny definition of 'rare'.
> 
> I'm not responding to the rest... it's obvious you just make up 'facts' as you see fit.


   Of course I stick to what I said as being accurate and true.

Where your link says fathers it fails to tell that it means step-fathers, and step-mothers and step-brothers and sisters are the ones that do the vast majority of sexual abuse.

It is very unusual and rare for a natural relative to do a sexual molestation while it is very common and widespread for step-relatives to do the dirty hateful stuff.

And it needs to be added that often the children do not know it is a step-parent because the children are usually lied to about the step-parent's true identity.

Children are told that this is your Daddy now or this is your Mommy when it is a lie, so the children grow up in deceptions.


----------



## Cletus_Vandam

VoteJP said:


> Of course I stick to what I said as being accurate and true.
> 
> Where your link says fathers it fails to tell that it means step-fathers, and step-mothers and step-brothers and sisters are the ones that do the vast majority of sexual abuse.
> 
> It is very unusual and rare for a natural relative to do a sexual molestation while it is very common and widespread for step-relatives to do the dirty hateful stuff.
> 
> And it needs to be added that often the children do not know it is a step-parent because the children are usually lied to about the step-parent's true identity.
> 
> Children are told that this is your Daddy now or this is your Mommy when it is a lie, *so the children grow up in deceptions*.


 
And you grew up on another planet if you think any of what you just said was correct.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> Of course I stick to what I said as being accurate and true.
> 
> Where your link says fathers it fails to tell that it means step-fathers, and step-mothers and step-brothers and sisters are the ones that do the vast majority of sexual abuse.
> 
> It is very unusual and rare for a natural relative to do a sexual molestation while it is very common and widespread for step-relatives to do the dirty hateful stuff.
> 
> And it needs to be added that often the children do not know it is a step-parent because the children are usually lied to about the step-parent's true identity.
> 
> Children are told that this is your Daddy now or this is your Mommy when it is a lie, so the children grow up in deceptions.



Back it up.  Do you know what a citation is?  Cite your sources.  If you look at the citations and actually read the cited articles in the link I posted, you will see that when they say 'relatives' they mean just that.  Step parents fall under 'friends of the family'.  Besides, they also allude to incest.  A step parent molesting a stepchild is not by definition 'incestuous', because there is no 'blood' relation.

If you want to make up stuff to satisfy your own need to avoid reality and make excuses and feel better about your past behavior, feel free to do so.  But to think that we will all by into your fantasy world just because you say so is ludicrous.  Nobody is going to accept anything as fact just because you say it.

Back up your claims with reliable source material if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## bcp

I think its time to stop picking on JPC, and see if we can actually help him.
 I think I found the cause of his delusions. See, He honestly feels that what he types is correct.


> Symptoms of Wet Brain Syndrome
> 
> Wet Brain Syndrome is characterized by many different neurological and psychiatric symptoms. *Two of the main symptoms, which are also seen in alcohol intoxication, are confusion and ataxia.* This is why the disease is sometime difficult to diagnose in severe alcoholics. Many symptoms of Wet Brain Syndrome involve the eye including nystagmus (a lateral tremor of the eye), ophthalmoplegia (paralysis of the eye muscles), anisocoria (unequal pupil size) and sluggish pupil reflexes (the eyes only slowly react to light). *Korsakoff's psychosis is characterized by amnesia, hallucination and confabulations. A confabulation is a fascinating psychiatric symptom in which people incorporate a fantasy or a figment of their imagination into their working memory. *They are also extremely suggestible. An example of a confabulation is when a doctor, who has only just met a patient with Wet Brain Syndrome can easily convince him that they are long time acquaintances. The patient then begins to confabulate other instances in which the two have interacted.


----------



## Bay_Kat

bcp said:


> I think its time to stop picking on JPC, and see if we can actually help him.
> I think I found the cause of his delusions. See, He honestly feels that what he types is correct.



I think you solved it.


----------



## hvp05

bcp said:


> I think I found the cause of his delusions. See, He honestly feels that what he types is correct.


That seems plausible... until the last bit where it mentions being suggestible;  JPC is one of the most closed-minded, resistant individuals with whom I have ever interacted.

You can attempt to help him all you like, but he (again) resists because he was tested for mental illness 20-something years ago and thinks that must mean he is still okay.


----------



## Vince

I know some of you were not here before when JPC was here so you don't know what an idiot you're dealing with and how useless it is to post to his thread.  Those of you that were here,  I have no simpathy for you because you already know he's an idiot and choose to talk to him anyway.  

P.S.  The "ignore" button works well.


----------



## vraiblonde

Crazy people don't realize that they're crazy.  That's why they're...crazy.

And frankly, you guys are crazy to want to keep debating with the crazy person.


----------



## godsbutterfly

hvp05 said:


> I suspect that some of the folks who happen to be step-parents and have previously given up trying to talk civilly with you are about to come back and kick your ass again.
> 
> So *even when* the parent is a proven danger to their child, they should retain unfettered visitation rights... in a "healthy" way.  I guess that question asking if you draw a line has been answered; the NCP could be the most vile, unscrupulous piece of trash to walk the earth and you would still want them to have access to their child.
> 
> I hope Jimmy Jr. does not allow his daughter to visit you, because you are a danger to ALL children.
> 
> I often think the definitions you have for words are not the same as everyone else; this is one of those times.  For there is no other way to label what you have previously described as "providing visitation" other than "forcing".
> 
> I do wonder why you can not admit that you are saying your ex-wife is to blame for not forcing Jimmy Jr. to see you when you ran out West.  You also did not answer whether you think that would have been a positive environment for little Jimmy to be in - partying, drinking, different women coming around - when you have admitted to now regretting doing some of those things.  Maybe that's why you won't answer, eh.



Isn't he just beyond belief? Now with the movie "The Stepfather" out there will be no stopping him! Speaking as a step-parent, yeah. I'd like to kick his butt - maybe it would shake his brains into place!


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



vraiblonde said:


> Crazy people don't realize that they're crazy.  That's why they're...crazy.
> 
> And frankly, you guys are crazy to want to keep debating with the crazy person.


   Please, you put me on a spot so I have to say it,

that even if or or the others were or are "crazy" or mentally ill, then they can still be right and correct in their postings or in my postings.

Being "crazy" or mentally ill does not make the person wrong or inaccurate or undebatable.

A mentally ill or crazy person can be right, can be correct and accurate, and it is a bias position to discard a message just because of some prejudice against the messenger.

So even if I am "crazy" then my message is still correct and true, and others here are not "crazy" when they simply do not know the truth as I do.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Cletus_Vandam said:


> And you grew up on another planet if you think any of what you just said was correct.


   When a step-parent tells the child that they are the child's "Mom" or their "Dad" when they are not - then that is a lie and then the children grow up under a deception.

Maybe when the commandment was written to say; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, then it needed to say do not lie to children either.


----------



## Animal

VoteJP said:


> When a step-parent tells the child that they are the child's "Mom" or their "Dad" when they are not - then that is a lie and then the children grow up under a deception.
> 
> Maybe when the commandment was written to say; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, then it needed to say do not lie to children either.


Being a Mom or Dad is a Hell of a lot more then being then being the biological unit.  But you wouldn't know about that, would you?


----------



## vraiblonde

VoteJP said:


> that even if or or the others were or are "crazy" or mentally ill, then they can still be right and correct in their postings or in my postings.
> 
> Being "crazy" or mentally ill does not make the person wrong or inaccurate or undebatable.
> 
> A mentally ill or crazy person can be right, can be correct and accurate, and it is a bias position to discard a message just because of some prejudice against the messenger.



I disagree.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



vraiblonde said:


> I disagree.


  ....   .. Okay that was really really funny.

So you must be one of those normal people.

I am sticking with the crazies.


----------



## vraiblonde

VoteJP said:


> ....   .. Okay that was really really funny.
> 
> So you must be one of those normal people.
> 
> I am sticking with the crazies.



Rock on with your bad self.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



This_person said:


> The non-custodial has no responsibility to actually be there?
> 
> This implies the non-custodial has no impact on the child's life.  Is that what you think?
> 
> What role does the NCP have in the child's life, then?


 My position simply must be based on the MD Law and not on any kind of semantics.

So the separated parents do have huge effects on the children, but when the law orders one parent to have "custody" then that legally excludes the other parent as the NCP.

The very name itself of "Non Custodial Parent" in itself legally excludes the parent and legally divides the family unit.

I try never to use that belligerent terminology as I call the parents as "separated parents" because they are legally separated from their children.

So legally a "NCP" has no parental rights at all.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> When a step-parent tells the child that they are the child's "Mom" or their "Dad" when they are not - then that is a lie and then the children grow up under a deception.
> 
> Maybe when the commandment was written to say; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, then it needed to say do not lie to children either.



Blood doesn't necessarily make you a mom or a dad... You might technically be one but it doesn't make you one. A deadbeat doesn't deserve the title of mom or dad. And a deadbeat can mean many things... a parent could support their child financially and do nothing else for them.. they are still a deadbeat.  A parent who doesn't do a thing financially or anything else is a deadbeat. A parent who is struggling to support the child but is there for everything isn't a deadbeat.. at least he/she is making an effort. 

The children can know who their "real" parent is.. but may feel closer to the person who is always there for them in every way a parent should be.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The very name itself of "Non Custodial Parent" in itself legally excludes the parent and legally divides the family unit.
> 
> I try never to use that belligerent terminology as I call the parents as "separated parents" because they are legally separated from their children.
> 
> So legally a "NCP" has no parental rights at all.


Posts like this lead one to believe that even you do not know what your position is.

On one hand you claim the NCP has no rights whatsoever because the law says so.  On the other you say you use your own terminology, and we know you don't respect the divorce and separation laws, so the legal bits should mean nothing to you.

Even figuring in mental illness, I don't see how you reconcile such incongruities; everything you say is so disjointed it's really quite astounding.


----------



## vraiblonde

VoteJP said:


> My position simply must be based on the MD Law and not on any kind of semantics.
> 
> So the separated parents do have huge effects on the children, but when the law orders one parent to have "custody" then that legally excludes the other parent as the NCP.
> 
> The very name itself of "Non Custodial Parent" in itself legally excludes the parent and legally divides the family unit.
> 
> I try never to use that belligerent terminology as I call the parents as "separated parents" because they are legally separated from their children.
> 
> So legally a "NCP" has no parental rights at all.



This is what you people are debating with.  Are you really that desperate to appear smart?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



hvp05 said:


> Posts like this lead one to believe that even you do not know what your position is.
> 
> On one hand you claim the NCP has no rights whatsoever because the law says so.  On the other you say you use your own terminology, and we know you don't respect the divorce and separation laws, so the legal bits should mean nothing to you.
> 
> Even figuring in mental illness, I don't see how you reconcile such incongruities; everything you say is so disjointed it's really quite astounding.


  From my own perspective then I say that was one of my most inspired posting of all times, and from now on it is going to be my mantra on the custody issue and I did not have a truly hard position on this before.

And I owe my thanks for it to T_p because I had neglected his questions but he pushed the issue and then it came out.

Others might not see the political strength of the position but I do - thank God.

This is one of those times where this Forum discussions have truly assisted me in my platform.

And yes of course I despise those "legal bits" but I must go through the legalities in my presentations and in my legal arguments.

So that is why I am NOT "reconciling such incongruities" as I am using one to undermine the other.

What "custody" and "non-custody" does is legally deny the parental rights from the separated parents.

Child Support steals the money while custody steals the children.


----------



## vraiblonde

VoteJP said:


> From my own perspective then I say that was one of my most inspired posting of all times, and from now on it is going to be my mantra on the custody issue and I did not have a truly hard position on this before.
> 
> And I owe my thanks for it to T_p because I had neglected his questions but he pushed the issue and then it came out.
> 
> Others might not see the political strength of the position but I do - thank God.
> 
> This is one of those times where this Forum discussions have truly assisted me in my platform.
> 
> And yes of course I despise those "legal bits" but I must go through the legalities in my presentations and in my legal arguments.
> 
> So that is why I am NOT "reconciling such incongruities" as I am using one to undermine the other.
> 
> What "custody" and "non-custody" does is legally deny the parental rights from the separated parents.
> 
> Child Support steals the money while custody steals the children.


I think that's wonderful and can't wait to hear it in your campaign speeches.


----------



## hvp05

vraiblonde said:


> This is what you people are debating with.


Who is debating him?  I am one who has tried to talk reason into him and realized it as a futile endeavor; now it's more about making sure everyone else realizes his craziness.

If he is good for anything, he does provide a break from the typical O-bashing going on in the 'real' political threads.  Those discussions may be more intelligent, but they're often no less inane.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> And I owe my thanks for it to T_p because I had neglected his questions but he pushed the issue and then it came out.


Just like a big turd, which is coincidentally analogous to what all of your opinions and ideas are.  Glad you think that's working for you.


----------



## vraiblonde

hvp05 said:


> now it's more about making sure everyone else realizes his craziness.



NEWSFLASH:  Anyone who doesn't get that from his posts never will, no matter what you do or say.


----------



## hvp05

vraiblonde said:


> NEWSFLASH:  Anyone who doesn't get that from his posts never will, no matter what you do or say.


Right, and only getting him to lay his ideas out there will make that happen.  But that is a lot different from actually debating him.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



vraiblonde said:


> NEWSFLASH:  Anyone who doesn't get that from his posts never will, no matter what you do or say.


   I do know that the most important people read these Forums, but I do not expect the vast majority of voters ever read the postings.

The Washington Post in a 2008 article about me  called this Forum the "*blogosphere*" and her report was biased and I think she meant to discredit me and instead it made me look like a candidate being targeted by the Post and I got 19,067 votes just in 5th District.

Lots of things work backwards in the blogosphere.


----------



## RoseRed

VoteJP said:


> I do know that the most important people read these Forums, but I do not expect the vast majority of voters ever read the postings.
> 
> The Washington Post in a 2008 article about me  called this Forum the "*blogosphere*" and her report was biased and I think she meant to discredit me and instead it made me look like a candidate being targeted by the Post and I got 19,067 votes just in 5th District.
> 
> Lots of things work backwards in the blogosphere.



Link it.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> her report was biased and I think she meant to discredit me and instead it made me look like a candidate being targeted by the Post


   She granted you an in-person interview because she didn't know about you - and therefore could not be out to get you.  She reported her analysis after allowing you to speak your mind... and she determined you had no chance, just like everyone else.


----------



## Pandora

RoseRed said:


> Link it.



http://forums.somd.com/politics/128016-jpc-washington-post-article.html

After rereading that thread, it is like Groundhog Day in this one.


----------



## LusbyMom

WOAH!!! Wait a minute... Not only did you walk away from your son but his mother died and you still didn't have custody of him and had to pay your sons stepdaddy??? Am I reading that correctly?


----------



## AeroTaken

vraiblonde said:


> This is what you people are debating with.  Are you really that desperate to appear smart?



Thank You!!!  As my sig line says....

*Never argue with morons.  They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!!*

Although this HAS been quite entertaining for my morning reading, LOL


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Pandora said:


> http://forums.somd.com/politics/128016-jpc-washington-post-article.html
> 
> After rereading that thread, it is like Groundhog Day in this one.


  Just look at that big happy smile on the picture, there in front of Pax NAS, and that is a picture of one very happy candidate.

And now we know that instead of the US Congress he was heading for the Governor's Office.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> WOAH!!! Wait a minute... Not only did you walk away from your son but his mother died and you still didn't have custody of him and had to pay your sons stepdaddy??? Am I reading that correctly?


  When my ex-wife died then I did become the single-parent and it never went to Court over custody because my son was a little over 17 and the Child Support Office decided without any Court authorization to send the Child Support to the second husband instead of giving me my due as parent.

But in due time the Man did go down to the Child Support office and it was he that closed my Child Support case and stopped the collection process so that was that for the Child Support thieves.

And after that then I still proceeded to spray paint the Child Support office in Leonardtown and later the MD State House in Annapolis with the words of "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" because even though my c/s case was closed then I was not finished with them.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> When my ex-wife died then I did become the single-parent and it never went to Court over custody because my son was a little over 17 and the Child Support Office decided without any Court authorization to send the Child Support to the second husband instead of giving me my due as parent.
> 
> But in due time the Man did go down to the Child Support office and it was he that closed my Child Support case and stopped the collection process so that was that for the Child Support thieves.
> 
> And after that then I still proceeded to spray paint the Child Support office in Leonardtown and later the MD State House in Annapolis with the words of "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" because even though my c/s case was closed then I was not finished with them.



So your son lived wit you when he was 17+? Or did he continue to live with his stepdaddy? And the child support you were paying him was that current support or the arrears you never paid?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Animal said:


> Being a Mom or Dad is a Hell of a lot more then being then being the biological unit.  But you wouldn't know about that, would you?


  Lying to children is a form of child abuse in itself, and that lie about being their "Mom or Dad" when not the Mom or Dad is a step-parent lie because it only comes through step-parents.

A lie is a lie even for those that see lying to children as some thing cute.

Of course we NEVER never hear children say it is "cute" for them to be lied to.

And I do know that it is usually the custodial parents that push the step-parents into the name-calling lies but the custodials have to do a lot of lying in order to get and to receive the Child Support and for custody and they lie to the step-parents too, because "custody" means stealing the children from the separated parents.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Lying to children is a form of child abuse in itself, and that lie about being their "Mom or Dad" when not the Mom or Dad is a step-parent lie because it only comes through step-parents.
> 
> A lie is a lie even for those that see lying to children as some thing cute.
> 
> Of course we NEVER never hear children say it is "cute" for them to be lied to.
> 
> And I do know that it is usually the custodial parents that push the step-parents into the name-calling lies but the custodials have to do a lot of lying in order to get and to receive the Child Support and for custody and they lie to the step-parents too, because "custody" means stealing the children from the separated parents.



The person who is to blame is the father or mother that do not act like one. Sometimes the child has the bigger bond with the step and chooses to call them either mom or dad


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> So your son lived wit you when he was 17+? Or did he continue to live with his stepdaddy? And the child support you were paying him was that current support or the arrears you never paid?


   I just do not know if it is okay to talk about this stuff as it is not quite my own business and my fighting against Child Support is not a personal thing to me.

But I have been picking at you so I will concede your right to know.

My son was living with his Mom and her second husband when she died of cancer at 38, and shortly thereafter my son moved out of the house at 18, and the Child Support case was closed after my mother asked the step-father to close it and he did. Then within a year of his wife's (my ex's) death then he died of cancer too around 40 years old. 

My son seems to believe that there was some thing in the water as the house has always used a shallow well and in Hollywood there has been contaminates recorded from production companies in Hollywood, but no one knows for sure how she got cancer at 38 and a year later he died of cancer too, and my son lived but he also moved out of the house.

And there was some 27,000$ in arrears so legally the Man was entitled to the arrears based on death inheritance but not to the actual Child Support as my son was never adopted.

And him being legally entitled to the c/s arrears after her death is legally debatable but it never went to Court.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> The person who is to blame is the father or mother that do not act like one. Sometimes the child has the bigger bond with the step and chooses to call them either mom or dad


  Children do as they are told, and no child calls a step-parent as "Mom or Dad" without being instructed to do so.

And a bonding based in lies is always a dishonorable thing. 

And there is no "acting" for real parents to be "Mom and Dad" but it is always a dishonest "act" for the step-parents.


----------



## vraiblonde

LusbyMom said:


> So your son lived wit you when he was 17+?   No.  Or did he continue to live with his stepdaddy?  Yes, until he moved out when he turned 18.  And the child support you were paying him was that current support or the arrears you never paid?  Arrears.


Then the step-father asked to have the CS case closed, and that was that.

Keep up, wouldja?


----------



## Bay_Kat

VoteJP said:


> Children do as they are told, and no child calls a step-parent as "Mom or Dad" without being instructed to do so.
> 
> And a bonding based in lies is always a dishonorable thing.
> 
> And there is no "acting" for real parents to be "Mom and Dad" but it is always a dishonest "act" for the step-parents.



You just don't give kids enough credit. An older child will know who his biological parents are, but if there is a step parent involved that does more for the child, the child may want to call that step parent mom or dad. I don't see where lies are involved.  You make kids sound really stupid.


----------



## bcp

vraiblonde said:


> Then the step-father asked to have the CS case closed, and that was that.
> 
> Keep up, wouldja?


I wonder.
 since the CS is for the child, could JPs son get the case opened back up and have JP ordered to pay him back support?

 If I would have ended up with a father like JP, I would do it. Wouldnt expect to ever get anything, but to know he was running and living the life of a bum, or locked up in jail married to bubba-joe, well, it would just give me a warm feeling.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



Bay_Kat said:


> You just don't give kids enough credit. An older child will know who his biological parents are, but if there is a step parent involved that does more for the child, the child may want to call that step parent mom or dad. I don't see where lies are involved.  You make kids sound really stupid.


  It is the job of "custody" to raise the children honestly and truthfully, so when there are lies in the family then it is the custodial that is to be blamed.

The children do not lie when they are deceived or mistaken, and if the children are heard telling untruths then it is the custodial's place to correct the false and to teach the children the truth.

And the step-persons are doing wrong if they allow the children to call them as "Mom or Dad" because it is a lie.

I do not blame those kinds of lies on the children at all, but I would call it as an incompetent or immoral act of custody.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> It is the job of "custody" to raise the children honestly and truthfully, so when there are lies in the family then it is the custodial that is to be blamed.
> 
> The children do not lie when they are deceived or mistaken, and if the children are heard telling untruths then it is the custodial's place to correct the false and to teach the children the truth.
> 
> And the step-persons are doing wrong if they allow the children to call them as "Mom or Dad" because it is a lie.
> 
> I do not blame those kinds of lies on the children at all, but I would call it as an incompetent or immoral act of custody.



The more you talk to more stupid you sound. 

Sperm or an egg does NOT make you a mommy or a daddy


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> And now we know that instead of the US Congress he was heading for the Governor's Office.


If you went there and knocked and they did not allow you in, would you spray paint the faćade with something like "This is my house"?




VoteJP said:


> Lying to children is a form of child abuse in itself, and that lie about being their "Mom or Dad" when not the Mom or Dad is a step-parent lie because it only comes through step-parents.


Yeah, I'm sure no one has ever experienced the scenario where the bio-father deserts his family when the kid is an infant, then the mother remarries a couple years later putting the new husband in position to raise the child as his own;  the child would in turn only know that man as 'daddy' and naturally refer to him as such.  I'm sure stuff like that never happens, and only the omniscience of JPC to have seen every relationship of all times could prove that to be so.


Gosh, that hurts just typing it.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



LusbyMom said:


> The more you talk to more stupid you sound.
> 
> Sperm or an egg does NOT make you a mommy or a daddy


   See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.

The biological parents will remain the child's parents for their entire life and only a cold lie can interfere with that reality.

The step-persons claiming to be the real parents have to remain untrue because the truth will end their charade at any time. 

A person must really value the truth in order to reject the personal lies.

And the real parents are forever the child's roots and history and lineage and inheritance and legacy and without those the child is personally blind and dumb and incomplete.

The family of the step-people have no real meaning to the child, while the real parents are the child's ancestry.

Not a child nor adult nor any "person" can know their own true identity except in their own biological terms.

Everything untrue is a fake and fraud and it creates a shallow emptiness.


----------



## RoseRed

VoteJP said:


> See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.
> 
> The biological parents will remain the child's parents for their entire life and only a cold lie can interfere with that reality.
> 
> The step-persons claiming to be the real parents have to remain untrue because the truth will end their charade at any time.
> 
> A person must really value the truth in order to reject the personal lies.
> 
> And the real parents are forever the child's roots and history and lineage and inheritance and legacy and without those the child is personally blind and dumb and incomplete.
> 
> The family of the step-people have no real meaning to the child, while the real parents are the child's ancestry.
> 
> Not a child nor adult nor any "person" can know their own true identity except in their own biological terms.
> 
> Everything untrue is a fake and fraud and it creates a shallow emptiness.



What about adopted children?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> *See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.*
> 
> My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.
> 
> The biological parents will remain the child's parents for their entire life and only a cold lie can interfere with that reality.
> 
> The step-persons claiming to be the real parents have to remain untrue because the truth will end their charade at any time.
> 
> A person must really value the truth in order to reject the personal lies.
> 
> And the real parents are forever the child's roots and history and lineage and inheritance and legacy and without those the child is personally blind and dumb and incomplete.
> 
> The family of the step-people have no real meaning to the child, while the real parents are the child's ancestry.
> 
> Not a child nor adult nor any "person" can know their own true identity except in their own biological terms.
> 
> Everything untrue is a fake and fraud and it creates a shallow emptiness.



I only degrade those that deserve it... I know a deadbeat who supports his child but has never to this day even laid eyes on the child.  He has not been involved in the child's life ever. Why? Because he doesn't want to be a parent. So even though he pays he is not a daddy. 

Like I said before a deadbeat parent doesn't always mean just a person who doesn't pay child support.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> See you degrade parents in that way as many other people do too, and to degrade parents and parenting is the after-effect of the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> My effort is to raise the place of parents and parenting back to an honorable status.





			
				JPC Sr said:
			
		

> When I first separated I paid all the bills as she stayed in our house and that was rediculous as it was like I just was not home, so then I stopped and she would not file for divorce or for child support so again it was unacceptable, then it was thought that they could live off the family or the gov if need be, but since there was property and credit available then the time restraints became a problem, so *I deserted to let them figure it out*.


----------



## Bay_Kat

So, JP, what about the woman you left your wife for, where does she figure in to all of this.  She's okay with all your BS?


----------



## MMDad

Here's something to celebrate, Jimmy. This is what a hero looks like - as opposed to a freeloader.

Calvert Deputy Awarded for Capturing "Most Wanted" - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News


----------



## hvp05

MMDad said:


> This is what a hero looks like


I have a suspicion that the two have already met at some point.


----------



## Tilted

JP

Specific personal disparagement does not roll off my fingers as easily as it does those of many other posters. I can't recall ever having called any of the posters on here a moron (though I may have). Even outside the forum setting, I avoid calling people morons to their face - not for fear of their physical reaction - but in favor of a better and more constructive articulation of the specifics of, and reasons for, my assessment of their mental abilities or behavior. Additionally, I have a hard time suppressing my natural empathy for other living things, and generally wish not to unnecessarily injure them emotionally (unnecessarily being the key word).

All of that having been said, you're a ####ing moron.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



RoseRed said:


> What about adopted children?


  Of course adopted children need to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

To adopt a child and then raise the child under a pack of lies is despicable.

I honestly believe that lying to children is one of the worse forms of child abuse because the lying violates the child's self identity, violates their trust, and many adults never overcome their childhood confusions based on the deceptions. Even in cases of violent physical abuses then it is the psychological violation that needs to be dealt with in honest terms or else it never heals.

And I do know that many parents that put up their children for adoption do want to remain anonymous and hidden, but I can see no real reason for the State to honor or enable that selfish and petty demand.

IMO, the child has a far greater human right to know, than any parent (or step-parent) has the right of hiding the truth.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



LusbyMom said:


> I only degrade those that deserve it... I know a deadbeat who supports his child but has never to this day even laid eyes on the child.  He has not been involved in the child's life ever. Why? Because he doesn't want to be a parent. So even though he pays he is not a daddy.
> 
> Like I said before a deadbeat parent doesn't always mean just a person who doesn't pay child support.


   I see you are like many people that try to play as a "god" in judging one parent as a "deadbeat" and another parent as "good money" but "bad parent" and giving your grand approval to your self and to other parents, but to give that kind of arbitrary and capricious discretion to our Courts and to the law was a big mistake to do.


----------



## TurboK9

VoteJP said:


> I see you are like many people that try to play as a "god" in judging one parent as a "deadbeat" and another parent as "good money" but "bad parent" and giving your grand approval to your self and to other parents, but to give that kind of arbitrary and capricious discretion to our Courts and to the law was a big mistake to do.



If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.  Nothing god-like about it.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



MMDad said:


> Here's something to celebrate, Jimmy. This is what a hero looks like - as opposed to a freeloader.
> 
> Calvert Deputy Awarded for Capturing "Most Wanted" - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News


  I really feel sorry for the Man, as he tried to be a Police Officer and instead the law has turned him into a legalized thief.

When the Man meets his Maker then he will be ashamed of what he was led into.

And as I take the Office of Governor than his position will no longer be needed.


----------



## Bay_Kat

VoteJP said:


> I really feel sorry for the Man, as he tried to be a Police Officer and instead the law has turned him into a legalized thief.
> 
> When the Man meets his Maker then he will be ashamed of what he was led into.
> 
> And as I take the Office of Governor than his position will no longer be needed.



You can't be trusted.  Anyone that looks at you past criminal history would never vote for you. I can't believe you can think that.  There is not one persone on the forums that would vote for you, what makes you think anyone else in the state of Maryland would?


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



Tilted said:


> JP
> 
> Specific personal disparagement does not roll off my fingers as easily as it does those of many other posters. I can't recall ever having called any of the posters on here a moron (though I may have). Even outside the forum setting, I avoid calling people morons to their face - not for fear of their physical reaction - but in favor of a better and more constructive articulation of the specifics of, and reasons for, my assessment of their mental abilities or behavior. Additionally, I have a hard time suppressing my natural empathy for other living things, and generally wish not to unnecessarily injure them emotionally (unnecessarily being the key word).
> 
> All of that having been said, you're a ####ing moron.


   Well you have done me no harm, and as the childish adage goes;

I am rubber and you are glue, so it bounces off of me and sticks to you.  

I do not see you as a "moron" but I say your posting show that you simply do not know how to articulate your feelings and so all you can express is the childish name calling.

And in the context that you give then the word "moron" means absolutely nothing at all.

So now we do not know how you feel about the subject or the discussion and you give nothing of substance except that you have decided to join in with other namer callers and you are now a name caller too.

Anyway, it did not injure me and quite honestly I do believe it stuck to your self.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



Bay_Kat said:


> You can't be trusted.  Anyone that looks at you past criminal history would never vote for you. I can't believe you can think that.  There is not one persone on the forums that would vote for you, what makes you think anyone else in the state of Maryland would?


  The people that agree with me do not post because Forums do not function that way.

People post when they disagree, just like you all cuss each other out in other threads.

I got 19,067 votes in 5th District 2008 and that is far more than all the posting in this thread.


----------



## Bay_Kat

VoteJP said:


> The people that agree with me do not post because Forums do not function that way.
> 
> People post when they disagree, just like you all cuss each other out in other threads.
> 
> *I got 19,067 votes in 5th District 2008 and that is far more than all the posting in this thread.*



you keep saying that, but that's not a big number, just sounds big to you.


----------



## Animal

His statewide potential is 276,167 if they all get out and vote.  Maryland Child Support, Child Support Enforcement


----------



## Bay_Kat

CountryLady said:


> JP's WEBSITE!
> VoteJP - Home
> 
> This guy is a drain on our SS system.
> 
> Get out there and get a job!
> SHEESH!



Exactly, he claims he's disabled, yet can run for governor.  If he can do that he can get a job doing something else.  Therefore, he is frauduently receiving disability.  Not to mention driving his vehicle illegally.  Historic plates on a vehicle, this vehicle is only to be driven for car shows and parades, but JP drives his truck every day. This plus his criminal history from the Maryland Judiciary website.  The man can't be trusted, and yet he thinks he will become governor.


----------



## Animal

Bay_Kat said:


> Exactly, he claims he's disabled, yet can run for governor.  If he can do that he can get a job doing something else.  Therefore, he is frauduently receiving disability.  *Not to mention driving his vehicle illegally.  Historic plates on a vehicle, this vehicle is only to be driven for car shows and parades, but JP drives his truck every day.* This plus his criminal history from the Maryland Judiciary website.  The man can't be trusted, and yet he thinks he will become governor.



I really hate defending JPC, but as you are in Florida how do you know that he is driving the vehicle everyday?  The actual constraints on the historic tags are:



> Vehicles classified as historic certifies the vehicle will be maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation and similar uses.  The vehicle owner further certifies the vehicle will not be used for general daily transportation or primarily for the transportation of passenngers or property on highways.


  If the use is occasional then he may well be within the guidlines for the use of the historic tags.  There is enough wrong about him already without having to fabricate anything that cannot be substantiated.


----------



## vraiblonde

CountryLady said:


> Get out there and get a job!
> SHEESH!



He's trying to get a job - a job as Governor.


----------



## Bay_Kat

Animal said:


> I really hate defending JPC, but as you are in Florida how do you know that he is driving the vehicle everyday?  The actual constraints on the historic tags are:
> 
> If the use is occasional then he may well be within the guidlines for the use of the historic tags.  There is enough wrong about him already without having to fabricate anything that cannot be substantiated.



I've only been in Florida 2 months and also know lots of people that live in St. Mary's and JPs truck sticks out like a sore thumb.


----------



## Animal

Bay_Kat said:


> I've only been in Florida 2 months and also know lots of people that live in St. Mary's and JPs truck sticks out like a sore thumb.


So exactly how many times have you seen him driving it?  I bet I know the answer.


----------



## Bay_Kat

Animal said:


> So exactly how many times have you seen him driving it?  I bet I know the answer.



about 5 times in about 6 months before I moved down here, I lived in Calvert and shopped in St. Mary's. My sister says she sees it all the time. She actually lives in St. Mary's.


----------



## Animal

Bay_Kat said:


> about 5 times in about 6 months before I moved down here, I lived in Calvert and shopped in St. Mary's. My sister says she sees it all the time. She actually lives in St. Mary's.


  JPC watch out Bay Kat and her sister are stalking you.


----------



## vraiblonde

Animal said:


> JPC watch out Bay Kat and her sister are stalking you.



Shut up.    You're wrong so get over it.


----------



## Animal

vraiblonde said:


> Shut up.    You're wrong so get over it.


Wrong about what?


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



Bay_Kat said:


> I've only been in Florida 2 months and also know lots of people that live in St. Mary's and JPs truck sticks out like a sore thumb.


 It is true that the truck is painfully obvious.

The thing is ugly, big, blue, noisy, gas guzzler, and runs like a battle tank.



Animal said:


> JPC watch out Bay Kat and her sister are stalking you.


  They are invited to stalk me anytime, anywhere and anyhow.

And anyone can stop me and say hi or do lunch or whatever, as I am welcoming and inviting to all.


----------



## CountryLady

Animal said:


> I really hate defending JPC, but as you are in Florida how do you know that he is driving the vehicle everyday?  The actual constraints on the historic tags are:
> 
> If the use is occasional then he may well be within the guidlines for the use of the historic tags.  There is enough wrong about him already without having to fabricate anything that cannot be substantiated.



that is true.
If Im not mistaken.
That "parade and shows" rule is for insurance companies.  Not all of them have that requirement.  
MVA has an age requirement.  20 or 25yrs depending on the situation.


----------



## vraiblonde

CountryLady said:


> OK,......Now he wants a free lunch!!!!



It's a campaign contribution.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



CountryLady said:


> Gas guzzler,  Hmmmm...........how do you afford that on SS????


  Most times I leave it parked, and I do not drive it very often.

It is just for show, and I walk for my exercise around town.



CountryLady said:


> OK,......Now he wants a free lunch!!!!
> 
> 
> Or maybe he's buying lunch,......Which is it JP!!


   Blondie is correct that it would need to be a "campaign contribution" because if I buy then it might be viewed as buying votes.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



donbarzini said:


> You moronic piece of semi-human detritus(I'll wait while you look 'em up).......................got it? OK, here goes. I've finally figured out how I want you to die. We go to the Maryland Support Enforcement Unit. Find the 4 women who are owed the most money, give them each a Dodge Ram 1500 with a chain on the bumper.  Then attach a chain to each one of your useless appendages. Then let 'er rip ladies!!!!! Then we immediately cauterize the wounds so you live. Then we tie a weight around your torso and dump you in the Bay with scuba gear so you can breathe while the crabs feast on what's left of you. If they're willing to eat something so full of sh!t


   The 2 part links below are a YouTube account primarily about the Child Support injustices but it is directly relating that to the injustices of Custody too.

Link here: Marsha Maines, Family Rights Activist - Part 1 

Link here: Marsha Maines, Family Rights Activist - Part 2

So it is important to see that it is not just "VoteJP" that openly reports the truth about these subjects.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



CountryLady said:


> FREE LUNCH IT IS!!!!!:
> 
> Ok,....who wants to buy JP a free lunch?
> 
> Anybody???:shrug:
> 
> (It will be a great way to get the blood flowing)
> 
> 
> However, I will have to bow out, (sorry JP)  just reading the BS that he spouts off, has my bloodpressure boiling most of the time, the other times I am   till I just about pee my pants.   If I went to lunch with JP, I think I'd have a stroke!!!!


   I must admit that I was trying to be funny and joking when I agreed with "Blondie" that lunch would be a "campaign contribution" as that is not true, and it would not be buying votes either if I was to buy the food, so I am repenting of my previous words as they were not accurate that time.

So really I would be happy for me to buy lunch for us both and it is true that I am funny and I like humor and it is always fun when I am involved.

But there is always a negative twist as I am a radical vegetarian and I would be telling you how the horses do not like having a person riding on their backs.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



smdavis65 said:


> I gotta pay child support.
> 
> Seriously, what is so hard about paying child support? It's your responsibility as a father.


  In some cases it is the mothers that pay the Child Support and in the YouTube video below it shows a custodial father asking the separated parent to pay up the loot; 

YouTube - Pay Yo Damn Child Support

It is sad but true.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> YouTube - Pay Yo Damn Child Support


I hope you link that on your website; it would be a great addition.


----------



## Bay_Kat

hvp05 said:


> I hope you link that on your website; it would be a great addition.



yea, I could only watch about 20 seconds of that, but I think you are right JP should put that link on his website.


----------



## hvp05

Bay_Kat said:


> I could only watch about 20 seconds of that


Congratulations.  You made it farther than I did.



> JP should put that link on his website.


It would help demonstrate the seriousness and sincerity of this top campaign issue of his, as well as his nomination in general.


----------



## Bay_Kat

hvp05 said:


> Congratulations.  You made it farther than I did.
> 
> It would help demonstrate the seriousness and sincerity of this top campaign issue of his, as well as his nomination in general.



If you want good entertainment, read his posts in the religion threads, especially the Muslim thread.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> I hope you link that on your website; it would be a great addition.





Bay_Kat said:


> yea, I think you are right JP should put that link on his website.


  Well that is great advice and I love it.

So yes it is now done and the Custodial Dad demanding the Child Support loot from his wife is now on my website.

See my J.P. for Governor of Maryland 2010 website here. 

So again you guys have been a big help to me and my campaign and I do appreciate it.


----------



## vraiblonde

VoteJP said:


> So again you guys have been a big help to me and my campaign and I do appreciate it.



Glad to hear it.

I think some people forget just what makes this country so great, and one of those things is that anyone can run for office.  You run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.  And I think that is awesome!


----------



## bcp

I dont think its been asked yet, So, I will.

 If you dont really want to win and become governor, why are you going through the trouble of running?

 What exactly is the reason behind all of this?


----------



## vraiblonde

bcp said:


> I dont think its been asked yet, So, I will.
> 
> If you dont really want to win and become governor, why are you going through the trouble of running?
> 
> What exactly is the reason behind all of this?



Well, obviously he's trying to publicize his issue and gain recognition of it.  Isn't that why most underdogs run for an office they can't possibly win?


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



bcp said:


> I dont think its been asked yet, So, I will.
> 
> If you dont really want to win and become governor, why are you going through the trouble of running?
> 
> What exactly is the reason behind all of this?


   I did explain it in another post link HERE that I do it because of my obligation and my duty to fight the evils of the Child Support and Custody laws.

And to be accurate, it is not really that I "do not want to win" but that I have no true desire to be the Governor.

So I do want to win, but if I do wing THEN then I will have to take on the awful burden of being the Governor and actually doing the reform through legal methods and that would be a huge task for me to fulfill.

So it is a "catch 22" as it is called, because if I win the election then I get caught in my own self made trap.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> So yes it is now done and the Custodial Dad demanding the Child Support loot from his wife is now on my website.


   That's great.  It's good that you could realize the seriousness of that video, when almost everyone else who viewed it thought it was something to laugh at.  (You can sympathize, I know.)



> So again you guys have been a big help to me and my campaign and I do appreciate it.


And here I thought the forums' influence was indeterminate.




VoteJP said:


> if I win the election then I get caught in my own self made trap.


   Even when you lose and stay where you are, you will still be in your own self-made trap.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I did explain it in another post link HERE that I do it because of my obligation and my duty to fight the evils of the Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> And to be accurate, it is not really that I "do not want to win" but that I have no true desire to be the Governor.
> 
> So I do want to win, but if I do wing THEN then I will have to take on the awful burden of being the Governor and actually doing the reform through legal methods and that would be a huge task for me to fulfill.
> 
> So it is a "catch 22" as it is called, because if I win the election then I get caught in my own self made trap.



I don't think you really need to worry about it.. you won't win


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



CountryLady said:


> What do you know about horses????:shrug:
> 
> I expect that you know less about that subject than you know about "child support reform."
> 
> WE DON'T EAT THE HORSES!! silly man.
> 
> But actually, our horses do like being ridden.  The younger ones, that we do not ride as much (due to their young age) will tend to take that halter and lead rope out of my hands, so that I will take them instead of one of the others.  It is quite cute behavior.  They just love to GO!!  They get to see all kinds of neat things and do all kind of cool stuff that they don't get to do while in the pasture with their herd buddies.  They LOVE to be with their peeps.  My son is a vegetarian and the horses don’t seem to have any ill feelings toward him.


  It would be necessary to view the horses with some empathy to know that they are not free to express their own feelings, and if any horse attempts to buck or resist then the human masters use greater brutality to force the horse to act as a better slave servant to you.

You may be acting friendly to the horse but you are not a friend of the horse when you use the animal as your slave servant.


----------



## Bronwyn

VoteJP  
This message is hidden because VoteJP is on your ignore list.  


I figured out the iggy feature again!!!!


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



CountryLady said:


> THE CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES SECTION of MD LAW
> 
> 
> 
> When one parent is awarded sole custody in a divorce, the other parent typically is required to fulfill his or her child support obligation by making payments to the custodial parent. When parents are awarded joint physical custody in a divorce, the support obligation of each is often based on the ratio of each parent's income to their combined incomes, and the percentage of time the child spends with each parent.
> 
> Regardless of how much latitude judges are given, the guidelines in effect in most states specify factors which must be considered in determining who pays child support, and how much.
> 
> These factors usually include:
> * the needs of the child -- including health insurance, education, day care and special needs
> * the income and needs of the custodial parent
> * the paying parent's ability to pay, and
> * the standard of living of the child before divorce or separation.
> 
> When a court sets child support, it often considers the family's pre-divorce standard of living and attempts to continue this standard for the children, if feasible. Courts, however, are aware of the difficulty of maintaining two households on the income that formerly supported one home. Maintenance of the same standard of living is therefore more of a goal than a guarantee.


   You do not give any of your own opinions here so I have no idea of what your point is.

But the law saying the "needs of the child" or "best interest of the child" is only equated in terms of cold cash and monetary products and nothing about preserving the family unit or needing both parents more than anything else. So the Child Support laws are corrupt to its core.

And the last sentence of maintaining the "same standard of living" is another perversion because divorce or lack of marriage is to be a substandard condition because marriage is to be on a higher plane and higher status - but no.

Trying to make pre-divorce equivalent to after the divorce makes the Institution of marriage as irrelevant.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> You may be acting friendly to the horse but you are not a friend of the horse when you use the animal as your slave servant.


There you go, Jimmy!  Animal abuse - an astronomically better platform for you over CS.





VoteJP said:


> nothing about preserving the family unit or needing both parents more than anything else.





			
				JPC Sr said:
			
		

> When I first separated I paid all the bills as she stayed in our house and that was rediculous as it was like I just was not home, so then I stopped and she would not file for divorce or for child support so again it was unacceptable, then it was thought that they could live off the family or the gov if need be, but since there was property and credit available then the time restraints became a problem, so *I deserted to let them figure it out*.


   Do you think anyone has possibly forgotten your previous words illuminating your astounding hypocrisy?




> And the last sentence of maintaining the "same standard of living" is another perversion


Perhaps that's why they said it's "more of a goal than a guarantee".   :shrug:


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> Perhaps that's why they said it's "more of a goal than a guarantee".   :shrug:


   My point was and remains that the goal is perverted in seeking to make divorce and separation as equal with the state of marriage.

So the goal is not "guaranteed" but it is not even a worthy destination.

Divorce and separation is to be an inferior condition and not otherwise.

The gov is to promote marriage and not empower divorces.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



Bronwyn said:


> VoteJP
> This message is hidden because VoteJP is on your ignore list.
> 
> I figured out the iggy feature again!!!!


   I have seen that expression of "iggy" many times and now I finally learn that it is referring to put some one on the "ignore" list = iggy.

I never put anyone on ignore and I had no idea of such a meaning.

So thank you for that info.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The gov is to promote marriage and not empower divorces.


Congratulations on uncovering a topic worth actual discussion.  Unfortunately, you're still wrong.

The government is supposed to do what it is there to do:  legislate and oversee the law.  Government's involvement in marriage should be granting marriage licenses as well as divorce decrees.  If anyone is to "promote" marriage and condemn divorce it should be the church (or whatever body) under which the union was formed.

People are not machines; you can not command them all to "get married and stay married" and expect them to follow the order without fluctuation.  No matter how much you work against it, there will be bad marriages, and failed marriages.  Plans must be in place to handle those contingencies.

Of course, none of this has to do with that CS information that was posted earlier.  They were discussing divorce only insofar as it relates to the child's needs.

But I know you'll want to continue on your tangent, so proceed...


----------



## bcp

hvp05 said:


> Congratulations on uncovering a topic worth actual discussion. Unfortunately, you're still wrong.
> 
> The government is supposed to do what it is there to do: legislate and oversee the law. Government's involvement in marriage should be granting marriage licenses as well as divorce decrees. If anyone is to "promote" marriage and condemn divorce it should be the church (or whatever body) under which the union was formed.
> 
> People are not machines; you can not command them all to "get married and stay married" and expect them to follow the order without fluctuation. No matter how much you work against it, there will be bad marriages, and failed marriages. Plans must be in place to handle those contingencies.
> 
> Of course, none of this has to do with that CS information that was posted earlier. They were discussing divorce only insofar as it relates to the child's needs.
> 
> But I know you'll want to continue on your tangent, so proceed...


 
 I think that his real issue is being missed here.
 Its becoming obvious that his wife got tired of his ignorant BS that he must have subjected her to during their brief marriage. 
 I suspect she was the one that threw him out.
 Because of this, he felt that the government should have stepped in and forced her to continue living like trailer trash just to honor her wedding vows.  The government did not do this, so, they in his mind, promoted the destruction of a family.
 Then, he decided in his drug destroyed mind that since the government played such a crucial role in his divorce, they had no right to force him to pay support for his child. When the government did force this issue, he decided that not only did the government break his family up, they also continued their intrusion by stealing money from him to pay support.

 Of course, none of this was his fault, it was all done by the power of the government, had nothing to do with his wife becoming tired of living the life of the trailer trash poor family that JP was providing them with.

 And to top it off, it is clear that if you actually work for a living, and assume your responsibilities as a parent, you are nothing more than a spoiled rich white person.


----------



## hvp05

bcp said:


> if you actually work for a living, and assume your responsibilities as a parent, you are nothing more than a spoiled rich white person.


... and a government slave.  Ignoring, obviously, the fact that he is more of a government slave than any of us because he not only lives entirely on a taxpayer-supplied income, he chooses to remain that way.

Your scenario does have potential.  Clearly, despite his statements saying otherwise, he harbors anger - possibly hate - for his ex, as he demonstrated in a post in the other thread today.

The only good feeling to be had is knowing he'll never be granted power to influence anyone else with his poison.


----------



## bcp

hvp05 said:


> ...
> The only good feeling to be had is knowing he'll never be granted power to influence anyone else with his poison.


 Yes, I think you are right.
 He will die a crazy old lonely man. His body will take weeks to be discovered, the neighbors, so used to the smell coming from his apartment, will not even notice that his rotting coprse lie in decay, slumped over the toilet in a bathroom wall papered with pages cut from the koran.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> Your scenario does have potential.







bcp said:


> Yes, I think you are right.


 You two flatter me in such pretentious claims like you know all about me - 

And I thought you both had me on the ignore (iggy) and here you both are back again and again showing your own words are shallow and worthless. 

After my election then I might just invite the whole SoMd Forum up to the Governor's Mansion and we will have us one BIG party.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> You two flatter me in such pretentious claims like you know all about me -
> 
> And I thought you both had me on the ignore (iggy) and here you both are back again and again showing your own words are shallow and worthless.
> 
> After my election then I might just invite the whole SoMd Forum up to the Governor's Mansion and we will have us one BIG party.


Show where I claimed to have you on ignore numbnuts. 
 Or, STFU.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> You two flatter me in such pretentious claims like you know all about me


Sure we do - you've told us everything we need to know.  And obviously our conclusions are correct.   



> I might just invite the whole SoMd Forum up to the Governor's Mansion and we will have us one BIG party.


I'll bring a few cans of spray paint.  I'm sure we can think of _some_ way to use them.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> Congratulations on uncovering a topic worth actual discussion.  Unfortunately, you're still wrong.
> 
> The government is supposed to do what it is there to do:  legislate and oversee the law.  Government's involvement in marriage should be granting marriage licenses as well as divorce decrees.  If anyone is to "promote" marriage and condemn divorce it should be the church (or whatever body) under which the union was formed.


  I really do agree with all you say here above, but the gov has made a mess of it.

The Church (or Religion) was the source of the Institution of "marriage" and granting the so-called "Marriage license" was just a way of unjustified taxation, and the gov granting legal divorces completely undermined the Church's power and position in our society.  

The Churches told married people that they could not get a divorce and then they went to the gov and for a few dollars the law granted a divorce in direct opposition of the Religion.

So the gov has completely undermined the Institution of marriage and has turned marriage into a "Civil union" because now a marriage is only a legal contract that can be broken with no religious regard at all.

Under today's system then marriage as a religious Institution is all paper and words but no substance and no strength and no authority, because the gov has taken over the marriage business and the gov is now making a mess of it.



hvp05 said:


> People are not machines; you can not command them all to "get married and stay married" and expect them to follow the order without fluctuation.  No matter how much you work against it, there will be bad marriages, and failed marriages.  Plans must be in place to handle those contingencies.


  That is true under our system we have now, and our gov can not preserve the marriage Institution because the gov can be bought and manipulated with ease concerning divorce and separation.

But in Religion and in every culture worldwide then marriage as a religious Institution was promoted and protected for all of recorded history, and divorce or separation was very rare.

And I do not say to now out-law divorce but we could stop ordering a decree of Custody that legally excludes one parent from their own children, and stop ordering Child Support that makes it profitable for the parent to be divorced, and we need to stop making the divorces so easy and comfortable.



hvp05 said:


> Of course, none of this has to do with that CS information that was posted earlier.  They were discussing divorce only insofar as it relates to the child's needs.


   That reminds me of the famous charity called "Feed the Children" that gives the perception that we can feed the children without the parents, as if the children are separate from the parents, and even if the parents are there then we are only going to feed their children and to Hell with the parents.

The only true way of helping children is by helping the children's parents.

And if "Feed the Children" were to give that food to the parents then those parents will use that food to feed their children as that is what parents do, and then it would be helping the family instead of claiming to help the children when the children's parents are being excluded.

It just does not work right that way.

And the same is true of Child Support that the child can not be helped or improved when at the same time it is hurting or excluding the child's parent(s). 



hvp05 said:


> But I know you'll want to continue on your tangent, so proceed...


   That is always true, and I still appreciate your consideration accordingly.


----------



## bcp

This_person said:


> If the parents were to provide for their children, not desert them so they could figure it out for themselves, there would be no need for Child Support laws..


 I can not agree with you more right here, perhaps the first intelligent thing you have written.
 If the parents were to provide for their children.
 big if, however, since so many like yourself decide it is in their best interest to just abandon the child with no support, the government is forced to step in and dictate how the divorce, the payments, and the child care will be set up.

 Maybe one day you will realize that if not for people like you, there would be no need for the government interfering in the lives of people.


----------



## hvp05

bcp said:


> I can not agree with you more right here, perhaps the first intelligent thing you have written.


I thought this statement was odd.      Probably a good idea to check your quoting...


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



bcp said:


> I can not agree with you more right here, perhaps the first intelligent thing you have written.
> If the parents were to provide for their children.
> big if, however, since so many like yourself decide it is in their best interest to just abandon the child with no support, *the government is forced to step in and dictate* how the divorce, the payments, and the child care will be set up.
> 
> Maybe one day you will realize that if not for people like you, there would be no need for the government interfering in the lives of people.


   The point remains that the gov does not need to be in the parenting police business in the first place, and the gov is not "forced to step in" as that is nonsense. 

The children are all completely fine and the parents doing no real crime and no victim at all, so the gov is not "forced" to "dictate" as in fact the gov is exceeding its role.


----------



## bcp

> The rich husband shall provide support in accordance with his means, and the poor shall provide according to the means that GOD bestowed upon him. GOD does not impose on any soul more than He has given it. GOD will provide ease after difficulty


 
 Even God thinks you should have supported your child in some manner, either with money, that you could have had if you would have been a man and worked, or with spiritual support if you would have been a man and stuck around in the area to do so.

 but you ran, you did nothing. I fear that God may have some stern words for you when the time comes.

 how do you reconcile this?


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



bcp said:


> Even God thinks you should have supported your child in some manner, either with money,


  Well I will tell you again, and it is nice on me that I do enjoy repeating this, so here it goes;

My own son and all children in the entire USA already have everything they need and are already supported to overflowing and more.

Now God does not tell me or anyone to give more and extras and to give excess to our own kids.

And you might see being a spoiled rich brat as a God given right or some gov given right, but it is not a parent given right.  



bcp said:


> that you could have had if you would have been a man and worked,


   A lot of people in today's society have such mixed up ideas of "Manliness" but I see it as far more Manly to do what is right and not to submit to lies or to pay into thievery or to let the gov impose horrible injustices on families and onto parents without trying to fight it.

You can try to make it some personal affront with me, but I do not see it as personal against you or your kind. 



bcp said:


> or with spiritual support if you would have been a man and stuck around in the area to do so.
> 
> but you ran, you did nothing. I fear that God may have some stern words for you when the time comes.
> 
> how do you reconcile this?


  Yes, you got me here, as I screwed up on my own family.

But my own past mistakes does not mean that I owe you or the State or my relatives anything outside of my own repentance.

So I have reconciled so far as best as I could, and you are not included in that reconciling.


----------



## bcp

This_person said:


> I'm guessing you thought Jimmy wrote that?


Figures.
 I finally agree with a statment he makes,, and he isnt the one that made it.
 shoulda known better


----------



## CountryLady

VoteJP said:


> It would be necessary to *view the horses with some empathy *to know that they *are not free to express their own feelings,* and if any *horse attempts to buck or resist then the human masters use greater brutality to force the horse to act as a better slave servant *to you.
> You may be acting friendly to the horse but you are not a friend of the horse when you use the animal as your slave servant.



: 
THIS IS OFF TOPIC AN SHOULD BE IN ANOTHER FORUM/THREAD ENTIRELY!!!
Well JP, I know I am wasting my time and breath but here it goes.  

Given your age, I can see why your perception of horse training would be a bit skewed.  But you are living in the here and now, and if you are making comments about things such as horses (and child support), you really should educate yourself prior to making such comments (although that has never stopped you before).  I invite you to come to the more appropriate forum to discuss this perception of yours. But you should be warned, I feel that the horse peeps would probably rip you to shreds.   

A great deal of empathy goes into training horses.  It is important to understand why horses react the way that they do both within and away from the heard.  When horses offer a buck while you are on their back, there is always a question of why?  But why do they buck while they are in the field playing with their heard mates?  What about horses that never offer to buck while you are on their back?  

Your statement, “human masters use greater brutality to force the horse to act as a better slave servant,” is really out of place in today’s time of “natural horseman ship.” The horse and rider is one of a team mentality, not that of a slave and servant.   

You maybe should think about using a little empathy with regard to your children, whom you abandoned.    They didn't ask you to bring them into the world.  But you did that together with your mate.  Put yourself in their shoes.  You have the responsibility to take care of your children.  That sense of FAMILY is what sets us (humans) apart from the animal world.    And while, at times, the government does seem to interfer with "Family,"  there are times where their power is needed to ensure that people own up to their responsibility (and even then, sometimes the system is a failure).  I do believe there needs to be some reform, but I am convinced that you are incapeable of doing it in any reasonable way.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> Jimmy, I couldn't help but notice you didn't answer any of this.


   There is only one question on that post and I figured I was doing you a favor by letting it fade away, but I will answer it since you insist, as to the rest of your posting I see as irrelevant and no questions and no response needed from me, IMO.

So, your question link it HERE is confused because I was talking about "Feed the Children" which means outside of the USA where the entire family and whole populations are starving and famine or war and it is not the same equation in third World situations.

In those Countries the Parents and children and everyone is in hard shape and there needs are NOT filled to overflowing as it is here. So in those places if they "Feed the Children" and not the parents then they are effectively killing the parents while saving the children which destroys the family unit - thus my point there.

So claiming to help the children when harming the parents is a similar example of our own USA Child Support system that functions on a similar misguided mentality that our laws can help children while harming the child's parent(s) and that destroys the family unit which is non productive.

The correct way of helping children is by helping their parents and supporting the family as a unit. 

Whenever a parent gets excluded then a part of the child is damaged and alienated.


----------



## hvp05

CountryLady said:


> A great deal of empathy goes into training horses.


You meant sympathy (showing compassion even when you do not totally understand someone's situation).  Unless you have been "trained"... and ridden.      And if you have, you'll have to take that discussion to somebody's private forum.   



> Your statement, “human masters use greater brutality to force the horse to act as a better slave servant,” is really out of place in today’s time of “natural horseman ship.”


Ironic that you started this thread with the "beating a dead horse" smilie.   



> You maybe should think about using a little empathy with regard to your children, whom you abandoned.


To his defense, he only abandoned one child.  That's better, see?





This_person said:


> So you would agree then that any parent who purposely puts themselves in jail in a tantrum is damaging their child?


Good thing you phrased it as a question... otherwise he could not answer.      Now he can...


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> So you would agree then that any parent who purposely puts themselves in jail in a tantrum is damaging their child?


   It is my understanding that the jail is not a Hotel and no one can put one self in jail and it has to be done by a due process.

And a "tantrum" is not really a crime so that would be an improper arrest if it does ever happen.

And there are many parents in jail now for every sort of crime and reasons, and I do say that every child is indeed damaged by having a parent incarcerated, but the child might not be alienated from an incarcerated parent if the custodial raises the child properly.

And I guess that you mean having a parent in jail because of the Child Support laws, and for that it is the law that is slandering the parents and in those cases the custodial would need to teach the children to disregard the violent degradation done to their parent child relationship and honor thy parent in spite of the law.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



CountryLady said:


> :
> THIS IS OF TOPIC AN SHOULD BE IN ANOTHER FORUM/THREAD ENTIRELY!!!
> Well JP, I know I am wasting my time and breath


   I do not intend to discuss horse abuse on the "Horse" forum, as it is a side issue for me that I leave to the PETA organization.



CountryLady said:


> And while, at times, the government does seem to interfere with "Family,"  there are times where their power is needed to ensure that people own up to their responsibility (and even then, sometimes the system is a failure). I do believe there needs to be some reform, but I am convinced that you are incapable of doing it in any reasonable way.


   The Child Support system has failed and it is doomed to become a far bigger problem, but few people see it coming.

I saw a new report in the Nov 5th County Times newspaper link HERE (see page 12, bottom far left side) and a 36 year old father is put into jail for Child Support and he tries to escape so now the father is a criminal parent because the thieving Child Support turns parents into criminals.

This is what your Parenting Police force does to our community families.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> No, one can choose an act that is illegal, then admit to it.  That's choosing to go to jail.


   If you will just look above in my posting #307 and there is a real life case and no imaginary story of parents putting them selves into jail.

There is an active account of a parent turned into a criminal by the thieving Child Support process.

Now you can blame it on him and how he put him self into crime and into jail, but if the parent will come to me then I will show him how to fight back in far more effective ways and he will not have to bow down to your kind of lies.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> If you will just look above in my posting #307 and there is a real life case and no imaginary story of parents putting them selves into jail.
> 
> There is an active account of a parent turned into a criminal by the thieving Child Support process.
> 
> Now you can blame it on him and how he put him self into crime and into jail, but if the parent will come to me then I will show him how to fight back in far more effective ways and he will not have to bow down to your kind of lies.


 
 question JP.
 Do you think that forcing people to pay high taxes to insure that the lowest earners, or non workers are covered with health care is stealing and unjust?


----------



## NorthBeachPerso

VoteJP said:


> If you will just look above in my posting #307 and there is a real life case and no imaginary story of parents putting them selves into jail.
> 
> There is an active account of a parent turned into a criminal by the thieving Child Support process.
> 
> Now you can blame it on him and how he put him self into crime and into jail, but if the parent will come to me then *I will show him how to fight back in far more effective ways and he will not have to bow down to your kind of lies.*



How?  By spray painting public buildings?

Pay your damn child support if you still owe it and pray your kid talks to you before you die.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> I saw a new report in the Nov 5th County Times newspaper link HERE (see page 12, bottom far left side) and a 36 year old father is put into jail for Child Support and he tries to escape so now the father is a criminal parent because the thieving Child Support turns parents into criminals.
> 
> This is what your Parenting Police force does to our community families.



Mr. Butler has been a criminal for 18 years including theft, forgery, assault, battery, and a 2nd degree sex offense. He was a criminal long before he decided to neglect his children.

If you want to hold up someone as an example of the child support system turning into a criminal, you need to find someone who actually wasn't a criminal before the CS system got hold of him.

Kind of like how you claim the CS turned you into a criminal, even though you admitted you raped women and had a narcotics charge long before you faced any CS related charges.


----------



## hvp05

MMDad said:


> you admitted you raped women


Ha... I had forgotten that one.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



bcp said:


> question JP.
> Do you think that forcing people to pay high taxes to insure that the lowest earners, or non workers are covered with health care is stealing and unjust?


  It is just that you are twisting around reality and that is the problem.

The Health Care reform is to bring our federal budget under control and taxes are to be higher for richer citizens and lower for poorer citizens as it is a simple math equation. 

And the high taxes are not to pay for health care as the taxes are far more-so going to pay for our Wars of occupation and in our super huge military budget so we can attack and kill the entire world if the USA choses to do that.

And some citizens might see taxes for health care as you say - that as "stealing or unjust" but I am not on their team.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



NorthBeachPerso said:


> How?  By spray painting public buildings?
> 
> Pay your damn child support if you still owe it and pray your kid talks to you before you die.


   My way is better than your idea above.

To spray paint is very liberating, while paying thieves is very debilitating.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> It is just that you are twisting around reality and that is the problem.


Can't help but    at that.



> The Health Care reform is to bring our federal budget under control


By digging the hole deeper...  I'd hate to see how you organize your finances.



> And the high taxes are not to pay for health care


Could you point out where the federal government earns its own money to pay for its actions?   



> our super huge military budget so we can attack and kill the entire world


Not the _entire_ world, but certainly a few hotspots are high on the hitlist.



> And some citizens might see taxes for health care as you say - that as "stealing or unjust" but I am not on their team.


To rephrase:  foisting a massive tax burden on those who are successful to support those who are an utter waste of society's space, not unjust.  Being required to support one's own offspring, however, totally unjust.

You really should move up to P.G., as that is about the only place your campaign will receive the slightest shred of recognition.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> But, if you choose to spray paint buildings, then choose to turn yourself in for doing just that, knowing full well you'll be imprisoned for it - aren't you choosing to separate yourself from your child?  Thus, aren't you guilty, per your own post, of "damaging and alienating" your own child?


   You are just so determined to attack me that you completely ignore the actual message.

A parent being separate from their children is not the same as Parental Alienation link 1, link 2, and separation alone is not necessarily damaging the children.

Parental Alienation: A Mental Diagnosis? - US News and World Report

And a parent spray painting the Child Support thieves' buildings is setting a morally right example for any child (or citizen) to see that the parent does not serve thieves.

But there is a big problem when the custodial alienates the separated parent.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



MMDad said:


> Mr. Butler has been a criminal for 18 years including theft, forgery, assault, battery, and a 2nd degree sex offense. He was a criminal long before he decided to neglect his children.
> 
> If you want to hold up someone as an example of the child support system turning into a criminal, you need to find someone who actually wasn't a criminal before the CS system got hold of him.


  You can dig up that stuff but I do not even look at his record as it makes no difference to me.

And the point I made still remains because that father must have gone to the Child Support hearing to be given work release in the first place, which means that father was trying to do as the law wanted, and he had a job too so he was trying to live by societal standards, and after he got into the work release and so how horrible of a deal it is (I was there myself and it is trash) so he went back to crime as that is what the Child Support system does is push parents into being a criminal. 

And now that father has no job and we are now paying some $20,000 per year to keep him in jail, and this time when he gets released then he will be a new detriment to this society. 

I am offering some thing far better by saying to stop making parents into criminals.



MMDad said:


> Kind of like how you claim the CS turned you into a criminal, even though you admitted you raped women and had a narcotics charge long before you faced any CS related charges.


   The Child Support did push me into crime, but I never raped anyone and the narcotics change was a meaningless dud.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> And a parent spray painting the Child Support thieves' buildings is setting a morally right example for any child (or citizen) to see that the parent does not serve thieves.


And you can now direct us to the law(s) that were changed, or at the very least, the lawmakers whose minds you swayed, in the wake of your actions, right?  Surely, you have something to look at or point to as a positive result to make your efforts worthwhile, because otherwise you were throwing a meaningless tantrum.




VoteJP said:


> And now that father has no job and we are now paying some $20,000 per year to keep him in jail, and this time when he gets released then he will be a new detriment to this society.


And the alternative would be... to allow him to run away, thereby dumping his child's care onto the state's shoulders, all while he continues to be a detriment anyway.   



> The Child Support did push me into crime


  How many times have you walked into a store and tried to take something without paying, afterward using the excuse that everything was made to be so tempting that you could not resist?


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> And you can now direct us to the law(s) that were changed, or at the very least, the lawmakers whose minds you swayed, in the wake of your actions, right?  Surely, you have something to look at or point to as a positive result to make your efforts worthwhile, because otherwise you were throwing a meaningless tantrum.


  It is fine by me if you and your kind want to view my actions as a temper tantrum.

So I got 3 years in Prison for spray painting the State House, and that means the State paid over 60,000 or 70,000 bucks when the spray paint cost me $1.55, and I loved doing the crime and I was happy to do the time as my act of civil disobedience against the Child Support thieves.



hvp05 said:


> And the alternative would be... to allow him to run away, thereby dumping his child's care onto the state's shoulders, all while he continues to be a detriment anyway.


  As the law is now that father is doing more to break the thieving Child Support then are most parents, because he is now costing the State big money and he is a living demonstration of the stupidity of the Child Support system.

IMO, he is an active and living warrior-parent right now, even if he does not know it himself.

And if I get elected then this stupidity will be stopped, and if I do not get elected then the law will fall under its own stupidity.

And we know that his children, like all the children, are completely fine and provided to overflowing.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> It is fine by me if you and your kind want to view my actions as a temper tantrum.
> 
> So I got 3 years in Prison for spray painting the State House, and that means the State paid over 60,000 or 70,000 bucks when the spray paint cost me $1.55, and I loved doing the crime and I was happy to do the time as my act of civil disobedience against the Child Support thieves.


I don't _want_ to view your outburst as anything, necessarily.  But if your actions had no net effect on the laws or the people who make them, then yes, your actions would be categorized as nothing more than a selfish tantrum.

Costing "the state" money is no proof of anything, primarily because "the state" has no money; if you hurt anyone it was your fellow citizens.  But I know you have trouble comprehending the concept of taxes.  So the other reason costing money is no proof is because once the money was spent and the mess cleaned up, probably within a few days or so, your great legacy was literally wiped out as if it had never happened.

Once you're finally gone there will be no reminder of your existence... as it should be.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> So, a parent being separated - deserting his own family - is okay,


  Being separated and deserting are two completely different terms.

And I do not see it as okay for a parent to be separated from their own children, but it happens, and in some cases it is necessary. Like a sailor going off to sea, or a parent going to jail, or some other unnatural occurrence.  

The parent(s) deserting is an unnatural occurrence and a sad reality.



This_person said:


> but a parent who chooses to not follow the law and therefore gets imprisoned is not okay?


   That is not okay, but it happens anyway.

It would be better if the parent did not feel the need to brake the law.



This_person said:


> Why?  What difference is there?


   What you wrote is so confused that I have no idea of what is different or what your point is in any of it.



This_person said:


> You say it's a problem if the custodial alienates the non-custodial.  If it's the non-custodial's actions that cause the alienation, isn't it the non-custodial choosing to alienate himself/herself from the child(ren)?


  It really does not matter if the separated parent chose to be separated or not for any reason whatsoever.

The duty of custody is to teach the children properly and that includes to "Honor thy father and thy mother" or else the custody is inadequate.

Like even if one parent dies then the custodial must not be raising the children as alienated from their real but dead parent, and a child can indeed honor their dead parent(s) or separated parents or absent parent or the parents living in the family home.

There is no reason for any child to feel alienated from either parent unless the custodial has failed in their job of providing custody.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> I don't _want_ to view your outburst as anything, necessarily.  But if your actions had no net effect on the laws or the people who make them, then yes, your actions would be categorized as nothing more than a selfish tantrum.
> 
> Costing "the state" money is no proof of anything, primarily because "the state" has no money; if you hurt anyone it was your fellow citizens.  But I know you have trouble comprehending the concept of taxes.  So the other reason costing money is no proof is because once the money was spent and the mess cleaned up, probably within a few days or so, your great legacy was literally wiped out as if it had never happened.
> 
> Once you're finally gone there will be no reminder of your existence... as it should be.


   I agree that costing the State money meant nothing, and the best after effect of my spray painting is that I get to brag about it ever after.

You see it as a tantrum, and I like calling it a tantrum, and in my own perspective I am extremely proud of my spray paintings and the subsequent jail and prison adventures so that I am just bursting with pleasure over it all.

It was fun, empowering, liberating, enjoyable, and I could have been killed in jail or on the streets and in other situations so it was a wild adventure.

And all that is really what first launched me into politics, and now I am going to be the Governor of Maryland, and I am going to reform the same thieving Child Support laws.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Like a sailor going off to sea, or a parent going to jail, or some other unnatural occurrence.


I am almost certain I read that you equate going to jail with going off to serve one's country, but I don't want to look because I may smash my head on my desk if I am correct.



> There is no reason for any child to feel alienated from either parent unless the custodial has failed in their job of providing custody.


So when you deserted your family it was your wife's responsibility to keep track of you so little Jimmy could still talk with you?  While you were jumping all around the country from Florida to Las Vegas, going from job to job, partying frequently and doing all kinds of un-dadlike activities, it was *her* job to keep tabs on you.  That could be difficult even in our current Internet/e-mail/cellphone age.

A logical person would think that the one with custody already has enough on their plate taking care of the deserted child[ren], and the least the non-custodial could do is make a damn phone call occasionally.

Leave it to you to think otherwise...


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I am just bursting with pleasure over it all.


You and Obama are like peas in a pod:  absurdly self-absorbed.  Although, to his credit at least he has been successful in some way, where you would be his inverse.



> I am going to be the Governor of Maryland


You have already admitted you do not believe that.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> You and Obama are like peas in a pod:  absurdly self-absorbed.


   I am happy to be compared with our great President Obama.

Even if you meant it incorrectly, I still thank you indeed.



hvp05 said:


> You have already admitted you do not believe that.


  I have never said that I would not be Governor, and since I am a legally registered candidate and unless something unplanned happens then I will be on the voter's ballot, so that means that no one knows if I will win or not.

Some might pretend to be prophets that see the future but not me.

Of course I do acknowledge that I am a political long shot against a big rich incumbent so my chance of winning is not guaranteed, but I still do have plans on occupying the MD Mansion as the next Governor.

And even if you dig up some old posting then I only say what is explicitly written and I give no secret messages, and no between the lines, no hidden or obscure meanings, because I write and post what I mean, and only mean what I specifically write, and nothing else.


----------



## carie_47421

JP - I think I speak for all of us when I say STFU!


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



carie_47421 said:


> JP - I think I speak for all of us when I say STFU!


   It is not nice to mis-use such dirty language, and did not your Mom teach you how to talk.

It is just not cool.


----------



## carie_47421

Mom mom taught me how to talk to JACKAS*E* like you !!


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*

 

I would say this means that T_p has officially returned to my world.

So welcome back my old adversary. 


This_person said:


> Agreed.  And, it hurts the children badly.  By the non-custodial parent's choice.  That's horrific.Agreed.  Childish, irresponsible behavior to break the law.


  We are not agreed with that way which you twisted it around.

And it takes two (2) to be "agreed" and you can not do it as one sided. 

And I find that every separated parent is never separated from their own children by their own free choice, as it is always a separation because of some form of force or coercion against the parents. 



This_person said:


> If you feel the law is improper, there are means to change the law.  Breaking the law is virtually never an honorable thing to do - and that includes child support law.  If one disagrees, one still needs to follow the law while trying to change it.


  I say that is true at first, like I tried and I do believe all separated parents do try at first to cooperate with the law and try to get a fair and decent deal, but after we find out the law is corrupt and unreasonable then any citizen including parents do have the right to fight back against the unjust gov by whatever means they chose. 

Breaking a rightful law is not honorable, but breaking or defying an unjust law is always an honorable thing to do.



This_person said:


> Unless, of course, the non-custodial parent is in someway dishonorable.  To teach a child to honor a dishonorable parent would be dishonest to the child, and therefore horribly wrong.


  I do not agree with that at all.

It does not matter what the parent is like as it is the child's duty to honor both parents and one's personal duty is never dependent on any other person.

And the custodial is to teach it properly to the children or it is a failure of custody.

And the famous commandment of "Honor thy father and thy mother" is not conditional as if do it only if one wants to - no.

Exodus 20:12  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 
KJV, link.

And see how there is a blessing and a cursing on that command, so doing it they are blessed, and by not doing it the children are cursed.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I have never said that I would not be Governor


You have said you do not want to be governor, and your apathetic actions (e.g., lack of campaigning or otherwise getting any message out beyond these forums) have already sealed your electoral fate.  The saying goes that actions speak louder than words, and your actions certainly confirm that you haven't the will to do anything more than leech off society for the rest of your days.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> You have said you do not want to be governor, and your apathetic actions (e.g., lack of campaigning or otherwise getting any message out beyond these forums) have already sealed your electoral fate.  The saying goes that actions speak louder than words, and your actions certainly confirm that you haven't the will to do anything more than leech off society for the rest of your days.


  It is an oxymoron like explained in the Tao, that I want to be Governor and do not want it at the same time.

It is like having a tooth pulled in that I hate doing it but it is necessary.

And I have always done campaign ads in the Newspapers and I plan to do some in the Newspapers again in this campaign but it is too early to do it now.  

And I might get on TV when the time for the debates come around.


----------



## SouthernMdRocks

VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> 
> Sad story but very real indeed.



You have a crippled mind.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



SouthernMdRocks said:


> You have a crippled mind.


   But do not you see the irony of what I said?

The parents go to Court and try to pay the Child Support and then get thrown into jail and called a "deadbeat" when the parents are just dead-broke.

And people call that as law and order.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



This_person said:


> No, it's choice.  Use yourself as an example - who coerced you to desert your family?
> 
> You, like so many others, abandoned your family because you chose to not be there for your son.  You had the choice of be there and pay a reasonable amount of money (all the while you could be fighting what you perceive as injustice in a legal manner, but again, you chose against that, too), or to abandon.  You, like so many others, chose the abandon option.That's right, "whatever means they cho[o]se".  You chose.  And, your choice was to fight in a manner which would separate yourself from both the physical and emotional ability to be there for your child.


   I do not deny that I myself blew it for my own family and for my son as I am guilty of my own failings and etc.

And I agree that we all including myself had choices and made choices, but my point was and remains that it was not a "free" choice as the choosing in such cases was and is always done under some form of coercion or force. 

You might be one of those that have never faced really hard adversities and maybe you always had easy choices, but I and many others go down a much more complicated path. 



This_person said:


> Finding a law which prescribes support for a child of your making could never, ever be construed as "honorable".  Should you choose to fight the amount, or even fight the basis of the law _while paying_, you may find yourself in an honorable condition.  "Desert"ing your child by choice, physically, financial, and emotionally could not ever be seen as honorable.
> 
> To be honored, one must be honorable.


  It fits under the ideal of "hate the sin but not the sinner" or as you once put it "Hate the sin and help the sinner" so even if you see the actions as dishonorable than you do not have to then dishonor the person. That would be your choice - to be respectful to others that you do not deem as worthy. 

It is an incredibly pompous position to only honor those that you deem as honorable because that is what a weak person does to those they see as their superiors. The strong person gives respect and honor to those that are unworthy, and I suggest we all become strong.



This_person said:


> If the custodial goes out of their way to influence the child _against_ the dishonorable parent, I would equally find that dishonorable.  But, to lie to a child would fill them with visions of what actions are honorable and what are not.  It is far worse to lie to the child in that manner than it is to allow the child to form their own opinion of the other parent.  It is NOT the responsibility of Parent A to create a false illusion of Parent B.  It is the responsibility of the Parent B to be honorable, and the child should then honor that parent.


 I did not ever say to lie, and I am strictly against lying to anyone including children, and definitely against false illusions.

And I feel it is necessary to use extreme examples so considering the D.C. sniper Mr Muhammad as the separated parent, and even now his children need to go to their father's grave and morn his and their loss and they need to come to decent terms with the reality of their father's life and his death and their own legacies. 

Now the custodial could degrade and insult the father in horrible ways and teach the children to feel negatively about their Dad, but to turn them into children that dishonor their Dad would not be socially or ethically beneficial to anyone.



This_person said:


> Nor does it put the responsibility on one parent to create the illusion of honoring a dishonorable parent


  CUSTODY, custody means providing the needs of the child, and the child needs to be taught to be honorable to both parents, and there is not to be any "illusion" or deceit or it is just a fraud, and a failure of custody.  

And honor does not have to mean liking the person, as like in an Army Soldier hating a drill Sargent, because one still honorably solutes and follows the orders of the Sargent that is hated.   

"Love thy enemy" does not mean liking thy enemy because they still are an enemy.

That is the way I view it.


----------



## Bay_Kat

Jpc...


----------



## Bronwyn

Speaking of child support... Maryland sucks so bad!!!

My  Ex hasn't paid a penny in over 6 months. He just bought a new house in Miami and has two rental propertys that he rents out in Virginia. He works too. He is flying to Maryland to attend a concert for our son.

I'm glad he's doing well but damn. Why does Maryland have such a hard time enforcing a court order?


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



Bronwyn said:


> Speaking of child support... Maryland sucks so bad!!!
> 
> My  Ex hasn't paid a penny in over 6 months. He just bought a new house in Miami and has two rental properties that he rents out in Virginia. He works too. He is flying to Maryland to attend a concert for our son.
> 
> I'm glad he's doing well but damn. Why does Maryland have such a hard time enforcing a court order?


  Some how I just do not see that as accurate or true.

I figure your saying it just to create a dishonest dispute.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> A choice is a choice.  You choose between the choices, freely.  The question is, are you willing to abide by the consequences of those choices.  YOU, and many like you, choose to ignore the needs and wants of your own child for your own selfish needs and wants.  It's really that simple.


  You see it as that simple as that is your choice and not mine.

But when I am Governor then everybody will start seeing it more correctly.



This_person said:


> Honoring the humanity of the person is fine. Honoring the dishonorable actions is a lie.


   Honoring the person is the whole point, not the action, and I never ever support lies or lying. 



This_person said:


> And, I believe someone once told me that it is wrong to bear false witness of my neighbor. To teach them their "dad" was honorable would be far worse, socially and ethically. Honest representation.


  It is "Honor thy parents", and not to make them honorable.

And the one that told us both to "not bear false witness" is the same one that told us to "Honor thy parents" and so surely we are able to do both at the same time.



This_person said:


> I do not suggest liking.  I suggest being honest.  If a parent chooses to desert his/her children, denying those children the assumed benefits of that parent's time, love, physical, emotional and economic support, then it would be dishonest of the custodial parent to not provide that information to the children, and tech them that those actions are dishonorable.


   That is based on your own distortion of calling it a free choice to base your claims on.

It certainly is not honest nor true to blame the separated parent while ignoring or leaving out the particulars like the marriage had failed and the hostile divorce and the laws that legally degrade the separated parent.

And to degrade the separated parent to their children is sinful in so many ways, even with your justifications for degrading their parent it is still a hateful wrong thing to do. 

The real message for the children is whatever the separated parent tells the children as their truth because the custodial has no right to speak or teach in opposition to the other parent's wishes.

The law does give the custodial the power to insult and to degrade the separated parents because custody does mean legally stealing the children from those separated parents, but to do it is still sinful indeed.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> Some how I just do not see that as accurate or true.
> 
> I figure your saying it just to create a dishonest dispute.



You're calling her a liar? That's not very nice, Jimmy.


----------



## hvp05

MMDad said:


> You're calling her a liar? That's not very nice, Jimmy.


Talk about "degrading the parents"  .  He's done it many times, as he has to come up with some way to continue his beliefs.  I'd like to learn his trick to be in so many places at once, and to know others' life stories better than the people involved, but he won't tell me how he does it.


----------



## Bronwyn

MMDad said:


> You're calling her a liar? That's not very nice, Jimmy.



I have him on iggy but....  Thank you.


----------



## Bay_Kat

Bronwyn said:


> I have him on iggy but....  Thank you.



Me too, but his stupidity still gets through.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



VoteJP said:


> The real message for the children is whatever the separated parent tells the children as their truth because the custodial has no right to speak or teach in opposition to the other parent's wishes.
> 
> The law does give the custodial the power to insult and to degrade the separated parents because custody does mean legally stealing the children from those separated parents, but to do it is still sinful indeed.


   After posting that then I thought about it and it needs to be expanded on.

Like if we go to some one's house (relative or not) and the parent tells the children dishonest stuff like about Santa Claus and flying reindeer and magical events, and we have no business telling their children that it is a pack of lies and we must not tell the children that their parents are liars and etc.

When the children are grown like over 21 then we can tell them the stories were not true and it is wrong to lie even to children, but then we are liable to get punched out or slapped or to make an enemy by telling children or adult children about the dishonesty of their parents.

Like the D.C. sniper Mr Muhammad (the only parent I figured T_p would see as worse than me) then he told his kids as he told the public and told the Court that he said he was innocent of the accusations and his own children have a right to know that. So the custodial and other people might tell his children that the law and the Courts did not believe their Dad but it would be inappropriate to tell his children that their father was a liar because that is violating the Institution of the parent and child relationship.

So any parent, be they the custodial or a separated parent, the parent has a right to teach their own children by their own beliefs and to violate that is to violate the child, link 1 and link 2 .     

Each parent has their own parental rights and what God has joined let nobody put asunder, Mark 10:9.


----------



## VoteJP

*Everybody gets saved on Judgment Day.*



MMDad said:


> You're calling her a liar? That's not very nice, Jimmy.


   I did try to be nice about it, but my real objective is to be more truthful than nice.

And many people preach stuff like "Santa Claus" and they see it as cute instead of a lie, so I do not call such persons as "liars" as they are more so just immature.

What the Woman said was so extremely untrue that there is not much else for me to do other then to call her on it.

If some one tells me there is a flying saucer on the roof with creatures from outer space walking around, then I will believe them and walk out to see the proof, but there is nothing to prove in her words and I say it would be weak of me to let it stand unchallenged.

I did it as nicely as I thought I could, and just because one is dishonest does not truly make them a "liar" in my perception as I have a much higher requirement than that.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> I did try to be nice about it, but my real objective is to be more truthful than nice.
> 
> And many people preach stuff like "Santa Claus" and they see it as cute instead of a lie, so I do not call such persons as "liars" as they are more so just immature.
> 
> What the Woman said was so extremely untrue that there is not much else for me to do other then to call her on it.
> 
> If some one tells me there is a flying saucer on the roof with creatures from outer space walking around, then I will believe them and walk out to see the proof, but there is nothing to prove in her words and I say it would be weak of me to let it stand unchallenged.
> 
> I did it as nicely as I thought I could, and just because one is dishonest does not truly make them a "liar" in my perception as I have a much higher requirement than that.


 
 The question that continues to come up in my mind is this.
 You constantly give advice on the proper way to raise children, what you should and should not tell them. How you should deal with things like Santa, or the Easter Bunny etc...
 What I have yet to pick up on, and I'm sure that I'm missing it somewhere so please entertain me with a repeat of this answer.

 based on how you turned out, and based on how your own child has turned out, what is it that gives you confidence that your way of raising a child is in any way healthy to them being a productive and happy citizen when they reach the age to be expected to do so?

 where did you gain this valuable information that obviously surpasses the techniques of the many parents here that are involved in their children's lives.


 I suppose I am basically asking for a brief resume from you that would cover your child rearing expertise.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> Okay, here's what she said:So, since you know her story better than she does, how much has her ex paid in the last six months?  Did he, or did he not buy a new house, and is it in Miami?  How many rental properties does he actually have in Virginia?  Does he actually work, too?  Is he, or is he not, coming to MD for a concert?
> 
> If any of these claims are "extremely untrue", please provide the truth.


   Some times like this you just go out into never-never land and not much I can do about it.

I already said what is what and what is not, and that is it.

There is nothing more to add, and nothing more to prove.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



bcp said:


> The question that continues to come up in my mind is this.
> You constantly give advice on the proper way to raise children, what you should and should not tell them. How you should deal with things like Santa, or the Easter Bunny etc...
> What I have yet to pick up on, and I'm sure that I'm missing it somewhere so please entertain me with a repeat of this answer.
> 
> based on how you turned out, and based on how your own child has turned out, what is it that gives you confidence that your way of raising a child is in any way healthy to them being a productive and happy citizen when they reach the age to be expected to do so?
> 
> where did you gain this valuable information that obviously surpasses the techniques of the many parents here that are involved in their children's lives.
> 
> I suppose I am basically asking for a brief resume from you that would cover your child rearing expertise.


  My confidence in my info is because I am basing my points on long established principles and doctrines.

Like I say "do not lie" or "do not bear false witness" so therefore lying to children is wrong and is sinful and it is harmful.

And like wise with me saying to "not steal" as in stealing Child Support, and we have worldwide established principles and doctrines as in "Thou shalt not steal" and so I can preach such things as that with full confidence that the info is correct and sound.

That is how I do it.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> Can you link me what her lie was?  I didn't find where you'd defined what it was she was lying about.


   I am done with that myself, but if you want to add some thing to the discussion then do feel free to answer the Woman your self.

You go give her some sympathy and regard for her plight since you believe her.

And why not tell her how the Child Support thieves really work, so then you can help her straighten out her problem since you believe her report.

And I would hope she or you would also note how her children already have everything they need to overflowing as that is a significant part of that equation whether it is a true story or NOT.

Honestly I say it would be enjoyable if you would step up to the plate here your self instead of playing the sidelines with me, because I am finished with that and it is over and done in my perspective.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> What the Woman said was so extremely untrue that there is not much else for me to do other then to call her on it.
> 
> 
> I did it as nicely as I thought I could, and just because one is dishonest does not truly make them a "liar" in my perception as I have a much higher requirement than that.



What did she say that wasn't true?


----------



## hvp05

MMDad said:


> What did she say that wasn't true?


JPC, I think you'd better answer this.  We all expect you to dodge and evade, but nonetheless, if you make a flat-out claim about another person you ought to support yourself, ignorant though you may be.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> JPC, I think you'd better answer this.  We all expect you to dodge and evade, but nonetheless, if you make a flat-out claim about another person you ought to support yourself, ignorant though you may be.


   There is nothing else to say.

It is only 4 or 5 lines in the entire posting counting her post in quote, so I am nobody's baby sitter here and if they can not understand the words then so be it.

She is satisfied and I am satisfied and I am not dodging or evading anything that has to do with me.

Deal with it.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> if they can not understand the words then so be it.


But you have said hardly anything.      You called her "dishonest" and her claims "extremely untrue", yet you can show nothing towards how you know such things.  I think you're scared to answer specifics because you know you will be trounced, so you keep everything vague and bail out before the heat gets too high.



> She is satisfied


I guess we won't know that one way or the other because she has you on ignore and does not care to engage you.  I think it is interesting how you speak for others when you complain about others doing the same for you.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



hvp05 said:


> But you have said hardly anything.      You called her "dishonest" and her claims "extremely untrue", yet you can show nothing towards how you know such things.  I think you're scared to answer specifics because you know you will be trounced, so you keep everything vague and bail out before the heat gets too high.


  This reminds me of John McCain trying to get candidate Obama to discuss the Iraq "surge" and McCain went on and on about the "surge", the surge, the surge, while candidate Obama went on to win, to win, to win. 

Politics is just so much fun.



hvp05 said:


> I guess we won't know that one way or the other because she has you on ignore and does not care to engage you.  I think it is interesting how you speak for others when you complain about others doing the same for you.


   Well taking to you or others as a third-person is kind of creepy too.

The Woman is hiding already and I do not want her to freak out over this.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> _*Which*_ words?  Where did you say what she was lying about?  You only said she was lying, we're asking what you're claiming she's lying about.


   I did NOT say she was "lying" as that is how you mis-interpret my words and you are not being accurate.

And I went on in a later posting saying that just because some one says things that are not true then that does not make them into a lie or a liar in my perception, as I hold a higher standard than that.

Your words are mean and cruel, and that is wrong of you to project your slanders into my comments.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> Did you forget you can quote someone's post?


  Duh, I certainly know what the post says, and how can you expect to be taken seriously when you ask some thing that lame?

If I wanted to quote either posting or add anything to either posting then I would do so, duh.

So if you want to add some thing or make a comment to either then do so.



This_person said:


> So, in fairness to you, you did not say she was a liar.  Just not accurate nor true in what she said, and just trying to create a dishonest dispute.


  I always write what I mean and I mean what I write.

I do not put in any secret messages or between-the-lines messages and no outside interpretations, and whatever is said is all that is said. 



This_person said:


> So, which part of her story was inaccurate or untrue.  What did she state that was dishonest enough to cause a dishonest dispute?


  If we go by my posting and my words than it says that everything she said was not accurate nor true.

All I use is simple English language and no tricks from me.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> no tricks from me.




One would think that, since you are limited to typing with your one good finger, when you did post you would make each word worthwhile.  Yet you seem to LOVE to go on and on without saying anything at all.  Why bother?


----------



## Bronwyn

What exactly did I lie about? I'll see if I can clear it up for you. 


p.s.

If JPtard actually comes back with a "lie" that I told, please quote him since i have him on iggy.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



hvp05 said:


> Why bother?


    I totally agree.

Why bother with any of it? 

And I wish you all a *Happy Thanksgiving*.


----------



## ~mellabella~

VoteJP said:


> It is not the same at all.
> 
> In Child Support a parents is put in jail simply for being poor which means the parents has done nothing to merit a crime and thereby guilty of nothing.



It is the non-custodial parent's  _inaction_ which gets him/her in trouble. It is not based on the fact that the parent is poor, it is based on the fact that the parent did not attempt to make payment.

In Maryland, and I'd assume most other states, there are several ways in which the state attempts to collect money from the delinquent parent. They can garnish wages, take from federal and state income tax refunds, report the past due amount to the credit bureau, suspend their license, collect from any lottery winnings they win, hold them in contempt of court for disobeying a court order, and if they run across state lines in order to avoid paying they can refer the case to Federal prosecution.

Now if you think these are extreme steps to "punish these poor parents" who in fact are neglecting their child/children, think of the reasons why they are so strict. If someone is disabled, they can apply for disability to help support their child. If they don't have a job, then it is their responsibility to get one in order to help support the child they helped create. 

In a lot of situations, children miss out on time spent with the non custodial parent simply because the parent refuses to help support them. It isn't being poor that causes so many families to be torn apart (which I know is a concern of yours) it is the parents failure to act. It is laziness driven by bitterness from the marriage, or maybe from being a parent. Either way, the parent needs to pay.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> I have no reason to doubt her, so I believe every word.
> 
> And, why would you doubt her?


  The problem for me is that I wish that her words were true, so me expressing my doubts makes no sense at all.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



~mellabella~ said:


> It is the non-custodial parent's  _inaction_ which gets him/her in trouble.
> 
> In Maryland, and I'd assume most other states, there are several ways in which the state attempts to collect money from the delinquent parent.
> 
> Now if you think these are extreme steps to "punish these poor parents" who in fact are neglecting their child/children, think of the reasons why they are so strict.
> 
> In a lot of situations, children miss out on time spent with the non custodial parent simply because the parent refuses to help support them.


   Hi "mellabella",

That is quite a speech, but I say it shows you have a real lacking in ethical and moral standards, as you just do not know that it is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to receive the stolen money, and everything else is hog wash.

And it is not just stealing money as it is stealing the children from their separated parents too.

No one owes anyone anything for having a baby, and stealing their money and stealing their children is some thing that God will punish and not me.

I am just hoping that I can help to speed that process up faster.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> I agree, so why did you?


 I said the "why" way back in my post #351 link it HERE, and for the record I quote it in blue below;

... there is not much else for me to do other then to call her on it.

... and I say it would be weak of me to let it stand unchallenged. 

And that is what I said then, and it is still correct and true now.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> We're still waiting for you to challenge her on it.


   I did challenge it, and if you look at my blue letter quotes in the above post (or see my full posting) then a sensible person can see that I was speaking in past tense - as in it was already done.

Maybe you just can not understand that I actually mean what I say?

I do realize that many posters on these Boards say anything and mean anything or mean nothing, but not I.

I said I "challenged" (and I did) then you ask when am I going to "challenge" like you read my words but miss the plain open meaning of the words, and that gives me no effective way to communicate with that.



This_person said:


> As in, what did she say, specifically, that was a lie?  How do you know?  What is the truth?


  I did not say anything was a "lie" and I have already said that I do not see it as a "lie" even if it was purposely dishonest, so if you want to call some thing a "lie" or some one as a "liar" then that is no business of mine.


----------



## hvp05

> VoteJP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did challenge it
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria of a "challenge", I would like to take this opportunity to challenge YOU on everything you believe and say regarding CS (not to mention immigration, religion, taxes, the war, and so on... but all in due time).  You consistently say things that are extremely untrue and misleading, and although I am sure _you_ believe them to be otherwise, that alone can not make your claims any more sound.
> 
> What I have said is true and accurate.  And I will not explain it any further.  If you can not understand that is your problem, and you will need to deal with that yourself.
Click to expand...

I guess you can not refute this either because you never responded.


----------



## Bronwyn

hvp05 said:


> See Bronwyn, this is how he weasels out of getting trapped, at least in his own mind.  He will generate his own word definitions, and if one fails he will spontaneously generate a new definition and keep going.  He likes to argue semantics - as he is doing now - instead of discussing substantive details because he already knows he will be too easily pinned by facts if the discussion stayed on objective material.




Which is proof that he's full of crap, a liar, has a history of mental problems, and will never in a million years win his election.

And I think he simply runs for the attention he gets. He loves stiring the pot and pushing buttons, because he gets off on it.

He's just an internet troll like Lance and several others here.


----------



## Bronwyn

He needs to get a dictionary




> *lie*1  /laɪ/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy]  Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.
> 
> –noun 1. *a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive*; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
> 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
> 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
> 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
> 
> –verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as *with intent to deceive*.
> 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.


----------



## Bronwyn

Another word he doesn't understand




> *chal⋅lenge  */ˈtʃælɪndʒ/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [chal-inj]  Show IPA noun, verb, -lenged, -leng⋅ing, adjective
> *a demand to explain, justify, etc*


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Bronwyn said:


> He needs to get a dictionary
> 
> lie1  /laɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.
> 
> –noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
> 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
> 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
> 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
> 
> –verb (used without object) 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
> 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.


   Well I do know the dictionary and I did explain my position in a previous post but fortunately I love to repeat things (not repeat myself though) and I see the untruth or dishonesty as just being immature like telling people there is a Santa Claus or flying reindeer or tooth fairy as such things are not true and even purposely dishonest but the person telling such untrue stuff does not see it as a "lie" or as "lying" as the person is just immature and unreliable. 

I say a true lie must be that of a mature person that knows the words are untrue and has willful intent to deceive the other person(s) in some negative way.

That is not a dictionary definition so I see it as my ethical and moral definition.

And it is not just about being dishonest with children, as well intentioned adults are dishonest about the thieving Child Support and the inhuman Custody arrangements, and I see such dishonesty as because they do not have the higher ethical and moral standards of a mature personality.  

So your dictionary is correct, but I see myself as not subject to other people's interpretation unless I agree with that interpretation.

My own conscience is my own judge.


----------



## Bronwyn

VoteJP said:


> Well I do know the dictionary and I did explain my position in a previous post but fortunately I love to repeat things (not repeat myself though) and I see the untruth or dishonesty as just being immature like telling people there is a Santa Claus or flying reindeer or tooth fairy as such things are not true and even purposely dishonest but the person telling such untrue stuff does not see it as a "lie" or as "lying" as the person is just immature and unreliable.
> 
> *I say *a true lie must be that of a mature person that knows the words are untrue and has willful intent to deceive the other person(s) in some negative way.
> 
> *That is not a dictionary definition so I see it as my ethical and moral definition.*
> 
> And it is not just about being dishonest with children, as well intentioned adults are dishonest about the thieving Child Support and the inhuman Custody arrangements, and I see such dishonesty as because they do not have the higher ethical and moral standards of a mature personality.
> 
> *So your dictionary is correct, but I see myself as not subject to other people's interpretation unless I agree with that interpretation.*
> My own conscience is my own judge.



Have fun in your own little world.

And stay the hell out of mine.


----------



## Bronwyn

*Delusional*

Here's a REAL definition for you.

de⋅lu⋅sion  /dɪˈluʒən/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-loo-zhuhn]  


–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding. 
2. the state of being deluded. 
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.  
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



Bronwyn said:


> Have fun in your own little world.
> 
> And stay the hell out of mine.


  If you would just look at my point then I am saying that you YOU you are NOT a liar and that you did not lie.

How would it be if I did as T_p or others that call anyone a liar and anything a lie that does not agree with their own twisted perceptions?

You could take notice that I am the one that is being respectful to you and acting as a Gentleman to you while others are not.


----------



## Bronwyn

VoteJP said:


> If you would just look at my point then I am saying that you *YOU you are NOT a liar and that you did not lie*.
> 
> How would it be if I did as T_p or others that call anyone a liar and anything a lie that does not agree with their own twisted perceptions?
> 
> You could take notice that I am the one that is being respectful to you and acting as a Gentleman to you while others are not.



Guess that's as close to an apology as I can ever expect.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



Bronwyn said:


> Guess that's as close to an apology as I can ever expect.


  That stuff you said is still not accurate nor true.


----------



## Bronwyn

VoteJP said:


> That stuff you said is still not accurate nor true.



Well we have JOINT custody... so who stole what from who?


----------



## VoteJP

*Everybody gets saved on Judgment Day.*



Bronwyn said:


> Well we have JOINT custody... so who stole what from who?


  The thing about that is that God first gives joint custody to the two (2) parents, but then the parent(s) go out to get a Court to order the same thing,

except that the Court order is always an inferior position then the custody given by God.

When both of the parents can cooperate with raising their children then that is the basis of marriage, but not when the Courts do it.

And when the Court orders one parent to have the kids certain days and the other parent to visit other days and one parent pays thus while the other parent pays that, then the parents have turned the Court into a type of God.

The two parents have joint custody at the baby's birthday, so what was the point of the Court in such a case?


----------



## Bronwyn

VoteJP said:


> The thing about that is that God first gives joint custody to the two (2) parents, but then the parent(s) go out to get a Court to order the same thing,
> 
> except that the Court order is always an inferior position then the custody given by God.
> 
> When both of the parents can cooperate with raising their children then that is the basis of marriage, but not when the Courts do it.
> 
> And when the Court orders one parent to have the kids certain days and the other parent to visit other days and one parent pays thus while the other parent pays that, then the parents have turned the Court into a type of God.
> 
> The two parents have joint custody at the baby's birthday, so what was the point of the Court in such a case?





Bored already with your drivel. Back on iggy you go.

bye bye


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



vraiblonde said:


> I think that's wonderful and can't wait to hear it in your campaign speeches.


   It does seem that many others miss that big point, 

that I am to be the next Governor of Maryland,

and then there will be a blessed improvement.

Then my way will become the law of our land.

And their wrong ways will be sent down the road.


----------



## VoteJP

*Everybody gets saved on Judgment Day.*



This_person said:


> This is a true statement on your part - you did not say she lied.  You just said everything she said was not true in an attempt to be dishonest.
> 
> Fortunately for you, you understand the difference.


   Amen brother, and the point best is that I did not get into such a dispute and so the "dishonesty" was never able to happen.  

The best for all concerned.



This_person said:


> Who did I call a liar?


  If you are saying that you never called anyone that, or you do not call that, or whatever, than that is all fine with me, and I hope none of us use that kind of terminology against each other or on anyone else.

God is the true judge of liars and of lies and not us.



This_person said:


> It's "respectful" to tell someone everything they said was not true, in an attempt to be dishonest?


   It was in this case, but I would not turn that into some blanket principle for every circumstance.

Jesus said to "seek the truth", and so be it.


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> The dishonesty happened - when you said all she posted was not true.



I can't help but wonder why you bother? Do you think that you will suddenly convince him to abandon his delusional little world and join the world of rational thought? Do you think that you can actually do better at proving he is delusional than he can?

You can't help him, you can't sway any opinion, so why do you do it?


----------



## hvp05

This_person said:


> Boredom, usually.  Like throwing a string out in front of a cat.


It's entertaining in and odd sort of way.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> the point best is that I did not get into such a dispute and so the "dishonesty" was never able to happen.
> 
> The best for all concerned.


You mean proving you to have massively failed once again was not able to happen; it was merely an average fail.  And that was best for you, which is your sole concern in everything you do.



> I hope none of us use that kind of terminology against each other or on anyone else.
> 
> God is the true judge of liars and of lies and not us.


If you run around preaching that 2+3=84, despite others kindly presenting every possible piece of evidence to the contrary, then you deserve to be called a liar.

Similarly, when you pronounce that no one willingly deserts their family/children, or that states withhold CS payments for greedy intentions, or that everyone's needs are met after countless pieces of evidence that prove you completely inaccurate and misleading then, yes, you should be called a liar.


----------



## hvp05

> VoteJP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did challenge it
> 
> 
> 
> Using your criteria of a "challenge", I would like to take this opportunity to challenge YOU on everything you believe and say regarding CS (not to mention immigration, religion, taxes, the war, and so on... but all in due time).  You consistently say things that are extremely untrue and misleading, and although I am sure _you_ believe them to be otherwise, that alone can not make your claims any more sound.
> 
> What I have said is true and accurate.  And I will not explain it any further.  If you can not understand that is your problem, and you will need to deal with that yourself.
Click to expand...

I guess you can not refute this either because you never responded.


----------



## CentralMD

VoteJP said:


> It does seem that many others miss that big point,
> 
> that I am to be the next Governor of Maryland,
> 
> and then there will be a blessed improvement.
> 
> Then my way will become the law of our land.
> 
> And their wrong ways will be sent down the road.



*** This has been a Public Service Aannouncement from, J.P. Cusick, Governor of Maryland ***

(*shhhhhhh... he likes when you call him that.)

Those who suffer from Megalomania with such delusional beliefs must continue to reiterate their deeply ingrained psychosis.

Just think, some of those genes have been passed down to another generation.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



This_person said:


> The dishonesty happened - when you said all she posted was not true.


  I have now seen that you and certain others act as the "Honesty Inspectors" and the Forum "Lie Detectives" and "Truthfulness Police" and I simply had not known that before.

You do not leave other people's consciences as being up to God where it belongs.

And T_p even put the Police warning into his signature like this: *A half truth is a whole lie. ~Yiddish Proverb*, so maybe he is the Yiddish police too.

So now I see why you are constantly twisting and freaking over such things as perceived "lies" and "liars" and now I see.

This is a big revelation to me, as now maybe it will help us to communicate better here.

And of course you and some others have made your selves as the high Judges of all that is true, and that must be a burden on you guys.

Of course it is a twisted dysfunction, but understanding is the beginning of respectful exchanges.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



CentralMD said:


> *** This has been a Public Service Aannouncement from, J.P. Cusick, Governor of Maryland ***
> 
> (*shhhhhhh... he likes when you call him that.)
> 
> Those who suffer from Megalomania with such delusional beliefs must continue to reiterate their deeply ingrained psychosis.
> 
> Just think, some of those genes have been passed down to another generation.


  Hi Central, and welcome to the SoMd forum.

And I do recognize who you are from your choice of words, and welcome.

And I am not going to give you any slack here as I do not give any to anyone else.


----------



## VoteJP

*Everybody gets saved on Judgment Day.*



hvp05 said:


> then you deserve to be called a liar.
> 
> you should be called a liar.


   D a r n, so you are another "lying police" of the Forum.

And I just did not know this before.


----------



## Highlander

CentralMD said:


> *** This has been a Public Service Aannouncement from, J.P. Cusick, Governor of Maryland ***
> 
> (*shhhhhhh... he likes when you call him that.)
> 
> Those who suffer from Megalomania with such delusional beliefs must continue to reiterate their deeply ingrained psychosis.
> 
> Just think, some of those genes have been passed down to another generation.



Wow, good job.  I think you've diagnosed JPC.  I googled the word Megalomania and it fits JPC to a "T".  Is his son as goofy?  Anyone know?


----------



## VoteJP

*Everybody gets saved on Judgment Day.*



Highlander said:


> Wow, good job.  I think you've diagnosed JPC.  I googled the word Megalomania and it fits JPC to a "T".


   I tend to like the sound of it, and I like the idea of a Megalomaniac as like "Lex Luther" or "the Joker" so if you wish to call me that then I doubt that you will get any further resistance from me other than as follows.

The problem with me being that is in my trying to help Maryland and to help parents and families and children and that is not a traditional thing for us Megaloes to be doing.

And I am not even involved in any Custody or Child support case so the idea of reforming those have nothing to do with me, and that is not considered as Megaloey either.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> I tend to like the sound of it, and I like the idea of a Megalomaniac as like "Lex Luther" or "the Joker" so if you wish to call me that then I doubt that you will get any further resistance from me other than as follows.
> 
> The problem with me being that is in my trying to help Maryland and to help parents and families and children and that is not a traditional thing for us Megaloes to be doing.
> 
> And I am not even involved in any Custody or Child support case so the idea of reforming those have nothing to do with me, and that is not considered as Megaloey either.



Have you every considered therapy or medication to address your issues?  You really are nuts.  I guess I shouldn't complain.  You are also very entertaining.  Good luck with that Governor thing.


----------



## VoteJP

*Everybody gets saved on Judgment Day.*



Highlander said:


> Have you every considered therapy or medication to address your issues?


 That is not really a sensible question, FYI, and if you are going to pretend to be a Psychiatrist diagnosing me then it is your place to prescribe any medications for my ills if I have such.

The best medication I know of is Champaign, or Harwood Canadian Blended whiskey with coke.  

And I certainly would not want any type of medication that would turn me into some "normal" person that fails to actively live in this world as I do now. 

And I see you claim to dislike "Liberals" but I find political Conservatism to be stuck in the past and can not progress into a better future, and Conservatives fail to change for the better when the change is needed.



Highlander said:


> You really are nuts.


  Do you not know that kind of name-calling as "nuts" has absolutely no real meaning at all - except to other people that call names.

And I am kind of nuts to spray paint the Courthouse and the State House and then run for Governor, so nuts is more fun then no nuts.



Highlander said:


> I guess I shouldn't complain.  You are also very entertaining.


 I see the Forum as entertaining too, even though lots of people fail to use their sense of humor in our discussions. 

And I have had lots of help on these Boards on how to effectively run my campaign and how to preach my message.

I like the other posters on here, even those that do not like me.



Highlander said:


> Good luck with that Governor thing.


  It is funny, but it is fun too.

In 2008 in a bid for the US Congress I got 19,067 votes just in 5th District link so now I have a foundation to run for MD Governor and that is no joke.

What I really need is an "event" like a "scandal" or a "phenomenon" or some thing that will put my Governor's campaign into a big News story.

Of course so far a very small amount of publicity has worked very well in my last 2 campaigns.

I win even when I lose.


----------



## oldman

Jimmy, I think rather than running for a government position you should attempt to get on comedy central.  You really do make me and a lot of others laugh bunches.  You could become a hit and make bunches of money just being yourself/


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> D a r n, so you are another "lying police" of the Forum.


I can't help that the facts are what they are.   :shrug:   I can't help that 2+3=/=84, nor can I help that some parents do act selfishly and desert their kids.

I do wonder why when you call someone "dishonest" and say they are saying things that are "extremely untrue" that is considered a fair 'challenge', but when others say the same things of your beliefs you immediately dismiss then insult them.  Seems a bit hypocritical.  Okay, A LOT hypocritical.

Thanks again for not responding to my challenge; you further prove that you can not adequately defend your case.



VoteJP said:


> I tend to like the sound of it, and I like the idea of a Megalomaniac


You might want to do a little reading on these things before you accept and boast about them...





> Megalomania (medical condition):  *A delusional state* where a person believes that they are superior to others.  They may believe themselves to be a god, a famous person or a gifted athlete.  They may feel they have great social, *political* or other powers. It is generally considered a symptom of other *manic or paranoid disorders*.  _(Source.)_


But hey, you have claimed it, so no denying it now.   



VoteJP said:


> The best medication I know of is Champaign, or Harwood Canadian Blended whiskey with coke.


I thought you no longer consumed alcohol.  Thanks for admitting otherwise.



> And I certainly would not want any type of medication that would turn me into some "normal" person that fails to actively live in this world as I do now.


Again boasting about being a delusional mental case.  Thanks for coming right out with it.   



> What I really need is an "event" like a "scandal" or a "phenomenon" or some thing that will put my Governor's campaign into a big News story.


I guess all the local hardware/paint stores should be put on alert for someone matching your description shopping for any paint supplies.


----------



## hvp05

oldman said:


> You could become a hit and make bunches of money just being yourself/


I have tried to tell him such several times, but he continues on with his silly "governor" fantasy.  Being a comedian would be less physically demanding than governor, so his 'disabilities' would not even come into play.


----------



## Highlander

hvp05 said:


> I have tried to tell him such several times, but he continues on with his silly "governor" fantasy.  Being a comedian would be less physically demanding than governor, so his 'disabilities' would not even come into play.



To us, he is very funny but I don't think he would make it as a stand up comedian or anything like that. You have to get to know him a little first to understand why he is easy to laugh at.

Maybe he would be a better fit as a case study on one of those medical shows.  Maybe they'll let Dr G. perform an autopsy on him while he is alive to try to figure out what is wrong with him.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



oldman said:


> Jimmy, I think rather than running for a government position you should attempt to get on comedy central.  You really do make me and a lot of others laugh bunches.  You could become a hit and make bunches of money just being yourself/


  I see the gov position as a funny position too.

And I really can make anyone laugh in real life, and I like to do it.

Some how on these Boards people fail to see my humor - but it is always there.

And that does not mean me being dishonest or deceptive or untrue, as I say the very best of all humor is in the real and true things.

I can be very facetious and truthful at the same time, and it is great fun.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Contrarian.*



hvp05 said:


> I can't help that the facts are what they are.   :shrug:   I can't help that 2+3=/=84,


  The equation does not add up and instead you are forcing the 2+3 to equal 84 when it does not.



hvp05 said:


> nor can I help that some parents do act selfishly and desert their kids.


  You are not to be the Parenting Police, and the gov is not to be the Parenting Police, and the children are not harmed by the squabbles of their own parents.

It is the Parenting Policing that hurts the parents and hurts the children because the laws are immoral and wrong.

And being a selfish person or a selfish parent is not to be a crime especially when the children do have everything they need to overflowing as is the case.

Real parenting is complicated and challenging, while the Parenting Policing is excessively abusive.



hvp05 said:


> I do wonder why when you call someone "dishonest" and say they are saying things that are "extremely untrue" that is considered a fair 'challenge', but when others say the same things of your beliefs you immediately dismiss then insult them.  Seems a bit hypocritical.  Okay, A LOT hypocritical.


   I do not see why you can not understand that and it seems super simple to me, so I will try again.

When I say some thing said is not true then that is NOT calling the person as dishonest. People make mistakes and we are some times honestly wrong and I even believe in respecting lies and liars when ever I can.

And when I say or post some thing that I believe to be correct and true to the best of my understanding, then I defend my points accordingly.

If I tell others that their words are not correct or not true then they are free and invited to defend their points too.

I certainly do not see anything hypocritical in telling some one else that they are wrong and saying myself as correct at the exact same time.



hvp05 said:


> Thanks again for not responding to my challenge; you further prove that you can not adequately defend your case.


  My understanding of a challenge is that one may accept it or reject the challenge, and I went back to read yours again and I see nothing for me give a response to.

When it is your own feelings and your position then that is fine with me even if you have different views from my own. 

And democracy is not about everyone agreeing with each other or even all agreeing with the winners or the leaders, because democracy means the majority ruling over the minority votes and I only need one (1) vote more than the opposition.

If I win the election then I will be your Governor whether you like it or not.



hvp05 said:


> I thought you no longer consumed alcohol.  Thanks for admitting otherwise.


  I still do not drink very often, and I do not like to ever drink alone.

The "Hole in the Wall" is the only place that I know of that has Harwood Whiskey at the Bar, and I do see it as the best Whiskey.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> The equation does not add up and instead you are forcing the 2+3 to equal 84 when it does not.
> 
> 
> You are not to be the Parenting Police, and the gov is not to be the Parenting Police, and the children are not harmed by the squabbles of their own parents.
> 
> It is the Parenting Policing that hurts the parents and hurts the children because the laws are immoral and wrong.
> 
> And being a selfish person or a selfish parent is not to be a crime especially when the children do have everything they need to overflowing as is the case.
> 
> Real parenting is complicated and challenging, while the Parenting Policing is excessively abusive.
> 
> 
> I do not see why you can not understand that and it seems super simple to me, so I will try again.
> 
> When I say some thing said is not true then that is NOT calling the person as dishonest. People make mistakes and we are some times honestly wrong and I even believe in respecting lies and liars when ever I can.
> 
> And when I say or post some thing that I believe to be correct and true to the best of my understanding, then I defend my points accordingly.
> 
> If I tell others that their words are not correct or not true then they are free and invited to defend their points too.
> 
> I certainly do not see anything hypocritical in telling some one else that they are wrong and saying myself as correct at the exact same time.
> 
> 
> My understanding of a challenge is that one may accept it or reject the challenge, and I went back to read yours again and I see nothing for me give a response to.
> 
> When it is your own feelings and your position then that is fine with me even if you have different views from my own.
> 
> And democracy is not about everyone agreeing with each other or even all agreeing with the winners or the leaders, because democracy means the majority ruling over the minority votes and I only need one (1) vote more than the opposition.
> 
> If I win the election then I will be your Governor whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> I still do not drink very often, and I do not like to ever drink alone.
> 
> The "Hole in the Wall" is the only place that I know of that has Harwood Whiskey at the Bar, and I do see it as the best Whiskey.



Wow, JPC...You're getting lots of attention.  I'll be you are eating this up.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> And when I say or post some thing that I believe to be correct and true to the best of my understanding, *then I defend my points accordingly*.


You did not do that on that last 'challenge'.  You totally ran away from defending it.   



> I certainly do not see anything hypocritical in telling some one else that they are wrong and saying myself as correct at the exact same time.


   You are hypocritical when you feel you can criticize others but they can not criticize you, or at least you do not listen to others' criticisms.



> If I win the election then I will be your Governor whether you like it or not.


You won't be my governor.      (Fortunately, you will lose so no one will have to fear being governed by you.)


----------



## Highlander

hvp05 said:


> You did not do that on that last 'challenge'.  You totally ran away from defending it.
> 
> You are hypocritical when you feel you can criticize others but they can not criticize you, or at least you do not listen to others' criticisms.
> 
> You won't be my governor.      (Fortunately, you will lose so no one will have to fear being governed by you.)



It just strikes me as so funny that he actually believes he will be the Governor.  He's barely qualified to be a Wal-Mart Greeter, much less a Governor.  Oh, and I wouldn't let him try to put a smley face sticker on my kids.  That would be creepy.  I guess we should just let him enjoy his fantacy for a little while.  I'm just dying to see what he runs for in 2012.


----------



## hvp05

Highlander said:


> I wouldn't let him try to put a smley face sticker on my kids.  That would be creepy.


I think he'll be too busy cavorting with his welfare/druggy/hooker friends to bother trying to swoon any of the average folks - the ones who he would need to rely on to win anything.



> I'm just dying to see what he runs for in 2012.


Someone already asked if he would go for the White House next.      He said no because he wants to allow The One to serve his full 8... but maybe in 2016.  Imagine how deranged he'll be by then.


----------



## CentralMD

Thanks to MarkP over on the The Sun forum for the laugh:

“Isn't it amazing the lengths some people go to to justify not wanting to support the children they helped make? I heard about one that really is the King Of All Losers, this guy is amazing.”

“He spends days on the Internet looking for cases of child support abuse to support his cause.”
“He has been to court several times for refusing to support his children.”
“He blames murder of people the murderer never met and terrorism on not having child custody and having to pay child support.”
“He is running for a government office for the entire purpose of eliminating child support.”
“He won't take donations for his self financed "campaign" because he will lose his SSDI.”

“He is one helluva man ladies you should all fight to see who gets him.”

Custody of Children laws. - Page 2 - Baltimore Sun talk forum


Come on girls, don’t be shy.


----------



## Bronwyn

At least we aren't the only ones that have to hear his drivel.


----------



## Highlander

CentralMD said:


> Thanks to MarkP over on the The Sun forum for the laugh:
> 
> “Isn't it amazing the lengths some people go to to justify not wanting to support the children they helped make? I heard about one that really is the King Of All Losers, this guy is amazing.”
> 
> “He spends days on the Internet looking for cases of child support abuse to support his cause.”
> “He has been to court several times for refusing to support his children.”
> “He blames murder of people the murderer never met and terrorism on not having child custody and having to pay child support.”
> “He is running for a government office for the entire purpose of eliminating child support.”
> “He won't take donations for his self financed "campaign" because he will lose his SSDI.”
> 
> “He is one helluva man ladies you should all fight to see who gets him.”
> 
> Custody of Children laws. - Page 2 - Baltimore Sun talk forum
> 
> 
> Come on girls, don’t be shy.



JPC

How many forums are you a member of?  They were beating you up pretty badly on the Balmer Sun forum.  Have you found anyone who actually supports you?  Please don't quote the 19,000 votes you got.  Those people did not vote FOR you.  They obviously voted against Hoyer and didn't know anything about you. Have you always been a failure?  Why do you enjoy being a loser?  Were you ever a real man or have you always been a leech and a menace to society?


----------



## VoteJP

*Everybody gets saved on Judgment Day.*



CentralMD said:


> ...     ....





Highlander said:


> JPC
> 
> ...     ....


  This campaign for Governor is going to be exciting and fun.


----------



## VoteJP

*Custody means legally stealing the children.*



hvp05 said:


> You did not do that on that last 'challenge'.  You totally ran away from defending it.


  Well I like to chose my own battles, and I do not try to bagger and beat any or all challenges that come along.

I try to stick to the things that are important to me, like the Child Support and Custody garbage going on, and my campaign for Governor, so other debates or comments have not much interest for me in this thread.



hvp05 said:


> You are hypocritical when you feel you can criticize others but they can not criticize you, or at least you do not listen to others' criticisms.


 I happen to like criticism and I even invite criticism, but that does not mean the untrue or foolish claims are going to be accepted by me.   

That is the way I view it.



hvp05 said:


> You won't be my governor.      (Fortunately, you will lose so no one will have to fear being governed by you.)


:shrug::shrug:


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Well I like to chose my own battles


Right.  You choose when you will get involved and, once you realize you can't handle it, you either digress or ignore the person.

Hey, that's what you did with your family, so I guess everything does come full circle.



> I happen to like criticism


You may read it, but you obviously do not take it to heart; if you did, all the people who have told you to shut up over the years would have convinced you that you should do just that.



> I even invite criticism


   That's the understatement of the day.


----------



## VoteJP

*The Child Support problem.*



LusbyMom said:


> * You gotta pay child support *



  Saw this report in the Enterprise and I say that I have it figured out.

Link = Murder scheme alleged

At the end of that third paragraph it tells that she had his child, and that means the Man was pressured for Child Support, and she is out acting as a single Woman, and per "MMDad" I checked the Man's Court record and he was not being allowed to visit his child.

That is the reason that for some reason nobody else can figure out.

I do not approve of trying to kill the Mom, because I say the Man simply does not equate that the crime against him is empowered and enabled by the unjust Child Support and Custody laws.

So I say his anger was misdirected.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*

  After posting that I have thought about adding this more:

The fact is that if I lose then everyone loses too, and if I win then everyone wins too, because I will put a stop to the ongoing ignorance or else if I lose then the ignorance will not be stopped.

And I told all about the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws in my previous campaign, so one would or could figure that the Child Support would be the winner but it is not, because it just meant another two more years of hurting parents and broken families and alienated children and injustice to all. 

Families in our society do not profit nor prosper with our laws keeping doing ignorance to parents and to families and there are few to one (1) option for stopping it and that is by voting JP.

The last two years from my last campaign have now passed and the ignorance of the Child Support and Custody procedures have not improved or relaxed but have only hurt more and hurt more and hurt more, which gives everyone the same choice now of continuing to live in the ignorance or finally doing some thing to stop it.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> if I lose


If... *IF*!      Aren't you used to losing by now?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> If... *IF*!      Aren't you used to losing by now?



  In politics as in the Tao - to lose is not the same as losing or as a loss.

I did well in both of my previous campaigns, and this time I know from experience that this campaign is progressing very well indeed.

In a lot of ways it would be far harder and far more demanding on me if I actually won.

So you are correct that it is funny, just like I laughed all the way from the spray paint store.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> In politics as in the Tao - to lose is not the same as losing or as a loss.
> 
> I did well in both of my previous campaigns, and this time I know from experience that this campaign is progressing very well indeed.
> 
> In a lot of ways it would be far harder and far more demanding on me if I actually won.
> 
> So you are correct that it is funny, just like I laughed all the way from the spray paint store.



Is there really such a place as a Spray Paint Store?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> In politics as in the Tao - to lose is not the same as losing or as a loss.


I don't know about the Tao, but in reality to lose means you did not win.  Which you didn't; the majority - vast majority - did not support you.  You can not even claim a partial win because you're message is still not being widespread or supported even on a grassroots level.



> this campaign is progressing very well indeed.


Is it really?  How many dedicated supporters do you have?  Do you regularly receive e-mails or letters in support of you and/or your beliefs?  How many folks stand up for you around here or the Baltimore Sun forum?



> In a lot of ways it would be far harder and far more demanding on me if I actually won.


Much as it would be far harder for you to get off your lazy bum and get a regular job.  Apparently, neither will be happening anytime this century.



> just like I laughed all the way from the spray paint store.


Yeah, keep living it up... and we'll see who ends up laughing on election day.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



Highlander said:


> Is there really such a place as a Spray Paint Store?



   See now that is funny.

I am happy to see some humor again, and the whole thing is hilarious.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> I don't know about the Tao, but in reality to lose means you did not win.  Which you didn't; the majority - vast majority - did not support you.  You can not even claim a partial win because you're message is still not being widespread or supported even on a grassroots level.



  I did not know it affected others that way, and I am sorry that I failed to live up to that.

So I confess that I did lose and I blew it and I tried but my trying was insufficient.

I guess I expected others to see it as I see the campaign since I felt that given the circumstances then I felt that I did okay.

So I did lose and I will likely lose this time too, but my duty is to try anyway and that is my intention to do. 



hvp05 said:


> Is it really?  How many dedicated supporters do you have?  Do you regularly receive e-mails or letters in support of you and/or your beliefs?  How many folks stand up for you around here or the Baltimore Sun forum?



None of that is relevant in my perspective, and I refuse to allow it to be my own consideration, because I have made it my own criteria to lead alone and not to make the questions of right from wrong (as in the thieving Child Support) to be a deduction of popular opinion nor of democratic voting. 

This is my self-sacrifice as in a knight's gambit because that is my power position, and not that way which you describe.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> I did not know it affected others that way, and I am sorry that I failed to live up to that.
> 
> So I confess that I did lose and I blew it and I tried but my trying was insufficient.
> 
> I guess I expected others to see it as I see the campaign since I felt that given the circumstances then I felt that I did okay.
> 
> So I did lose and I will likely lose this time too, but my duty is to try anyway and that is my intention to do.
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant in my perspective, and I refuse to allow it to be my own consideration, because I have made it my own criteria to lead alone and not to make the questions of right from wrong (as in the thieving Child Support) to be a deduction of popular opinion nor of democratic voting.
> 
> This is my self-sacrifice as in a knight's gambit because that is my power position, and not that way which you describe.



I can't seem to finish reading JPCs posts anymore.  Is anyone else having this problem?  Is it because they don't contain anything worth reading?  Is it because it's painful to see someone suffer like this?  Am I just numb to his rhetoric?  I used to find his delusional rantings interesting but am losing interest.  
Can someone suggest another mentally challenged member of SOMD forums who post bizzare stuff so I can see if it's just JPC or all nuts.


----------



## hvp05

Highlander said:


> Can someone suggest another mentally challenged member of SOMD forums who post bizzare stuff


Try visiting Politics; several of them there.  Maybe not _as_ delusional as Jimmy, but they can be entertaining nonetheless.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> Try visiting Politics; several of them there.  Maybe not _as_ delusional as Jimmy, but they can be entertaining nonetheless.



   Dear hvp, you touched my heart with that.

"Highlander" did not mean what he said as that was just his way of heckling me.

I am the master that pulls his strings, and he has no where else to go. 

It is still a compliment to you in trying to reach out to that nit-wit.

May God bless you hvp.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> Dear hvp, you touched my heart with that.
> 
> "Highlander" did not mean what he said as that was just his way of heckling me.
> 
> *I am the master that pulls his strings, and he has no where else to go. *
> It is still a compliment to you in trying to reach out to that nit-wit.
> 
> May God bless you hvp.



Thank you Jimmy.  That one did get a laugh out of me.  Or, should I call you Master?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> When one parent believes money is needed for the proper providing to the children, and another parent believes only the other parent's money is needed, what is the process by which this dispute gets resolved, legally?



  We already know it gets done in a horrible and hateful way, and I am not about to explain the thieves or their thievery process here, and my point remains that as Governor then I will put a stop to the thievery and reform the system.



This_person said:


> What does asking a parent to provide for their child do that causes alienation between child and parent?



   That "request" is really a demand given under threat of violent thievery if the parents do not comply with the thieves. 

Thereafter comes the alienation.



This_person said:


> Really?  How about child abuse?  How about parental neglect?  Should any parent be allowed to do anything they want to, or against, their children without law enforcement?



  Of course not, and Child Support laws have nothing to do with physically abusing children.

You say it like that as do many custodials because it inflames the subject and use that dishonesty to justify the thievery and justify taking the loot, but it is not true and it is not real, because Child Support has nothing to do with child abuse.


----------



## Irish_Eyes

VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> 
> Sad story but very real indeed.



What world do you live in? Seriously, I need to know, so that I know to avoid ending up there myself. Anyone who calls the laws that see to it a child gets proper care and that the responsibility of caring for a child isn't left solely on one parent's shoulders "theft" needs a lobotomy, followed by a nice long stay in a padded room while wearing a huggy jacket.

If you don't want to pay to help take care of your children, keep your damn pants on. If you don't want to go to jail for not paying for the children you helped make, get a damn job. If you can't get a job, seek state assistance(there's tons of it out there, and last I heard, if you could keep decent grades and are considered "low income", theres all KINDS of grants from the government to put you through college. Best part? YOU DONT HAVE TO PAY GRANTS BACK, and at the end of that four years of college, you actually have a decent salary and can afford to make a better life for not only yourself, but your kid. 

Those who are disabled or sick get plenty of help if they actually ASK for it. And I've seen plenty of cases where if that's the reasoning(and proof is provided) during the court hearing, that parent is OFFERED help. If you're so proud you would rather refuse help to protect yourself, than take it to see to it the child you helped bring into this world is getting what they need and DESERVE, then you deserve to be locked up for it. You deserve to have your assets liquidated.

While you're sitting there whining about how unfair it is to have to pay child support, have you ever thought about the custodial parents who have to pay twice as much when the child support check never comes? While the parent not paying support is getting a decent meal because they're taking the money that should have been put into their child support payment and using that to pay for their nice food, what about the custodial parent who is easing PB&J for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, so their kid gets proper nutrition from a well rounded meal?? What about the parent who keeps wearing shoes that have long since been worn down to nothing but the bare threading, so their kid has a warm jacket, or the supplies they need for school? 

And did you ever stop to think about the message it sends to the KIDS when one parent refuses to do what's needed to take care of them? Did you ever stop to think about what kind of example that sets? That maybe, being deadbeat and not even trying to get help(because it IS out there), is telling your kids it's OK to live that way?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



Irish_Eyes said:


> What world do you live in? Seriously, I need to know, so that I know to avoid ending up there myself. Anyone who calls the laws that see to it a child gets proper care and that the responsibility of caring for a child isn't left solely on one parent's shoulders "theft" needs a lobotomy, followed by a nice long stay in a padded room while wearing a huggy jacket.



  That is really called "marriage" where both parents raise their children is called marriage.

The idiotic laws we have now are trying to force parenting into divorce and divorce is not marriage.



Irish_Eyes said:


> If you don't want to pay to help take care of your children, keep your damn pants on.



  No, it is okay to have babies, but if one wants help with the children then get married to the other parent.



Irish_Eyes said:


> If you don't want to go to jail for not paying for the children you helped make, get a damn job.



  It is NOT paying for children, as Child Support is a matter of unjust and thieving laws.

I say it is more ethical to go to jail rather than pay the thieves, but there are other options for undermining the thievery.



Irish_Eyes said:


> If you can't get a job, seek state assistance(there's tons of it out there, and last I heard, if you could keep decent grades and are considered "low income", theres all KINDS of grants from the government to put you through college. Best part? YOU DONT HAVE TO PAY GRANTS BACK, and at the end of that four years of college, you actually have a decent salary and can afford to make a better life for not only yourself, but your kid.



  I honestly do not see how it can be expected for anyone to seek out a job just to pay off some unjust thieves and their thieving Child Support demands.

And what kind of a mentality can conceive of purposely going to school so they can get a better job just to pay more thievery to thieves? Like that is going to happen - not.



Irish_Eyes said:


> Those who are disabled or sick get plenty of help if they actually ASK for it. And I've seen plenty of cases where if that's the reasoning(and proof is provided) during the court hearing, that parent is OFFERED help. If you're so proud you would rather refuse help to protect yourself, than take it to see to it the child you helped bring into this world is getting what they need and DESERVE, then you deserve to be locked up for it. You deserve to have your assets liquidated.



  The stolen Child Support is fattening up many a custodial but it is NOT providing anything to any child, except maybe in some cases the Child Support will provide some extras and luxuries that spoils them.



Irish_Eyes said:


> While you're sitting there whining about how unfair it is to have to pay child support, have you ever thought about the custodial parents who have to pay twice as much when the child support check never comes? While the parent not paying support is getting a decent meal because they're taking the money that should have been put into their child support payment and using that to pay for their nice food, what about the custodial parent who is easing PB&J for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, so their kid gets proper nutrition from a well rounded meal?? What about the parent who keeps wearing shoes that have long since been worn down to nothing but the bare threading, so their kid has a warm jacket, or the supplies they need for school?



  That is silly nonsense and not one ounce of truth to it.

Just emotional babble.



Irish_Eyes said:


> And did you ever stop to think about the message it sends to the KIDS when one parent refuses to do what's needed to take care of them? Did you ever stop to think about what kind of example that sets? That maybe, being deadbeat and not even trying to get help(because it IS out there), is telling your kids it's OK to live that way?



  I do see what the custodial teaches the children concerning the separated parents and the Child Support to be very harmful to the children and it alienates the parents and breaks up the family unit.

Those kind of lies do need to be stopped.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> And, when you are governor and suddenly able to create and abolish laws (something no current or past governor has the authority to do, but you've had that explained to you several times as well),



  I intend to lead the State and not to follow fools.



This_person said:


> then what will be your holiness's process to settle these disputes?



  The disputes do not need to be settled. 

It is the marriage that needs to be settled and not the disputed separations and divorces. 

People can settle their own disputes or live with the disputes as that is a part of life, but the State has no business in breaking up families.

Or the State could settle disputes by stop escalating the disputes, and stop using the law to break up families. Like order marriage counseling or refuse to grant divorces and make adultery into a crime.

And if there must be a separation then the one with the money needs to get the children, since the State wants children provided then giving the children to one without the money to fulfill custody is absurd.



This_person said:


> Why?  This is the exact same way taxes work, so what's the difference between taxes being taken in this exact same manner, and given as "disability" or "welfare" to people who have no more need for it than a parent's child does?



  Taxes are NOT the same as Child Support and you are just playing a hateful pretense, and people with disabilities or on Public Assistance must first qualify for the assistance, while Child Support demands cash from dead-broke parents and Child Support is given to Custodials that do not need it.


----------



## Irish_Eyes

VoteJP said:


> That is really called "marriage" where both parents raise their children is called marriage.
> 
> The idiotic laws we have now are trying to force parenting into divorce and divorce is not marriage.



So let me get this straight... one parent should get off the hook 100% if they're not going to get married to the other parent? So... if you're the one who would normally be asked for child support, and you refuse to marry the other parent, you shouldn't have to pay? Are you kidding me? You helped make the kid, but because there's no ring on your finger or a peice of paper saying you're married to the other parent, that means you get off the hook no questions asked? 

And honestly, most couples who have kids out of wedlock these days ARENT SUITED TO BE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER in the first place. Do you have any IDEA what the studies have shown a home with two parents who do not love each other can do to the children in that home? That children who grow up in a home where there is no love and, in most cases, usually some level of tension between the married couple, end up with emotional and mental stability issues that can rival a child who spent their life being abused. 



VoteJP said:


> No, it is okay to have babies, but if one wants help with the children then get married to the other parent.



You're basically suggesting that we, as a society, should regress a few hundred years where it was expected that if a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, that she had to get married to the man who got her pregnant to save herself and her family the shame. You're also suggesting that a man should be allowed to go around and knock up as many women as he wants, then dissappear and not have to pay a dime to help take care of those children.



VoteJP said:


> It is NOT paying for children, as Child Support is a matter of unjust and thieving laws.
> 
> I say it is more ethical to go to jail rather than pay the thieves, but there are other options for undermining the thievery.



If it's not paying for children, what about those families that depend on that child support payment to make sure that there's food on the table, or clothes on the kid's back? I'm aware that there are quite a few custodial families out there who may not NEED that extra money, but they're damn sure entitled to it. 



VoteJP said:


> I honestly do not see how it can be expected for anyone to seek out a job just to pay off some unjust thieves and their thieving Child Support demands.
> 
> And what kind of a mentality can conceive of purposely going to school so they can get a better job just to pay more thievery to thieves? Like that is going to happen - not.



So at this point, you're pretty much calling the kids who benefit from that extra money thieves. As parents, and as law makers, it is the responsibility of adults to make sure that someone speaks for the children, because they cannot speak for themselves. 



VoteJP said:


> The stolen Child Support is fattening up many a custodial but it is NOT providing anything to any child, except maybe in some cases the Child Support will provide some extras and luxuries that spoils them.



So... the child support payments that make sure a better grade of food is in the kitchen, or there's more gas in the custodial's car so that that child is gauranteed to be able to make it to school if they miss the buss, or to go to practice for a sports team or some other extra curricular activity, is just spoiling the kid?? We should give children the bare minimum of what they need to survive and let a parent who abandoned their kid live in whatever kind of comfort they want to?



VoteJP said:


> That is silly nonsense and not one ounce of truth to it.
> 
> Just emotional babble.



Actually, that's the kind of stuff that happens everyday. It's rare when one parent can make enough money to ensure that they and their child have decent food, clothes, and in general, a decent quality of living. In most instances, when the money gets tight, that parent makes sacrifices that they never should have had to make, in order to be sure their child was getting what the needed and deserved. Meanwhile, the other parent is walking around in new clothes, new shoes, and eating good warm meals, and rarely spares a second thought for those who's lives they have an effect on, even when they're not around.



VoteJP said:


> I do see what the custodial teaches the children concerning the separated parents and the Child Support to be very harmful to the children and it alienates the parents and breaks up the family unit.
> 
> Those kind of lies do need to be stopped.



You focus to much on making the custodials... the parents who actually STEPPED UP and took responsibility for their kids... the bad guys. And you never bother to look at the parents who dissappear and don't help raise the kid, but then feel somehow wronged when they want to be in that child's life(usually without taking any responsibility), and are told no. What about the effect it has on the kid when a father dissappears and never bothers to come visit, never sends a child support check, and then YEARS pass by, and suddenly he shows up on the front step and expects to be treated like he has some sort of right to be there. What about what it tells that kid? Tells them that "dad" will love them so long as it's convenient for him, and if it's not, well... good luck on ever seeing him or feeling like you're important to him.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> No, it is okay to have babies, but if one wants help with the children then get married to the other parent.


The government can not stop anyone from having a child or having as many children as they want; people must control themselves.  Since we are not animals operating solely on base instinct, and there is no threat of a population shortage, people need not feel that they _must_ procreate; the smart thing for anyone to do is to wait until they are mentally, physically, and financially capable to handle all the burdens and challenges of raising a child.



> I say it is more ethical to go to jail rather than pay the thieves, but there are other options for undermining the thievery.


That's a great message to send:  "I'd rather go to jail than help support you".   



> I honestly do not see how it can be expected for anyone to seek out a job just to pay off some unjust thieves and their thieving Child Support demands.


Did you miss the part of her statement that said having a job is a good thing so that one "can afford to make a better life for not only yourself, but your kid"?  I can understand a social leech like you not understanding, but being gainfully employed is a positive for all parties - the employed, their family, their employer, and their community.



> And what kind of a mentality can conceive of purposely going to school so they can get a better job just to pay more thievery to thieves?


I guess only those with a purpose would strive to purposely get ahead in the world.  Again, I can see how you do not understand such a thing.




VoteJP said:


> I intend to lead the State and not to follow fools.


You would be a wonderful lead fool, even better than O'Money has been... if you were to win.   



> People can settle their own disputes or live with the disputes as that is a part of life, but the State has no business in breaking up families.


Obviously, people can not often settle their own disputes or there would not be so many court cases.  Besides, having a third party unrelated to the situation can go a long way towards finding a fair resolution.



> Like order marriage counseling or refuse to grant divorces and make adultery into a crime.


The law can not force people to remain together.  If adultery were a crime it would not deter most from doing it anyway.



> And if there must be a separation then the one with the money needs to get the children, since the State wants children provided then giving the children to one without the money to fulfill custody is absurd.


Such a thing is not absurd when the character of each person is considered, or one parent admits they do not want to care for the child.  Didn't that happen in your situation, Jimmy?  If one parent is a cheater, compulsive liar, repeatedly in trouble with the law, etc., it probably is best that the child not be given to them; just because they have the money does not imply they will make the better parent.


----------



## hvp05

Irish_Eyes said:


> We should give children the bare minimum of what they need to survive and let a parent who abandoned their kid live in whatever kind of comfort they want to?


You'll find, after enough arguments with him, that yes, he does indeed believe what you said.  He believes this is why we have social services, to support people to no end; and he would rather a family receive government welfare than non-custodial child support.


----------



## Irish_Eyes

hvp05 said:


> You'll find, after enough arguments with him, that yes, he does indeed believe what you said.  He believes this is why we have social services, to support people to no end; and he would rather a family receive government welfare than non-custodial child support.



Even when that government welfare is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers who take care of their own kids? I mean don't get me wrong, I think the help should be there for those that need it, but I don't think anyone should be put in the position TO need it because someone else isn't doing what they should. It should be there when no other options are available, like when the parent who should be paying child support dies or something of that sort. Even then, I'm also of the opinion that those who recieve help like that should have to prove on a yearly, sometimes even monthly, basis, that they are doing something to improve their quality of life in order to recieve that aid. They need to proove that they're doing something to put themselves in a position where they can take care of their own(such as providing school transcripts that state they're attending community college or some sort of technical/trade school). Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough holding people accountable who take advantage of those kind of programs, so you get the ones who are perfectly content to live on the bottom rung because as long as they stay there, the government pays for practically everything. >.<

Taking care of your kid and seeing to it they have the best that you can provide is part of what I think of as being a good parent. When we go shopping at our house, the kid's stuff get's bought first, ours second, because we never want to come up short and have him go wanting. My boyfriend isn't even married to me and I've seen him make sacrifices to help make sure my son gets what we feel he deserves, which is the best we can afford.


----------



## hvp05

Irish_Eyes said:


> Even when that government welfare is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers who take care of their own kids?


Yes.  He doesn't fully grasp the idea of the "taxpayer" or "taxes"; he seems to think the government has its own money, and virtually limitless amonts of it.

Then again, there is quite a lot that Jimmy doesn't fully grasp.   



> I mean don't get me wrong, I think the help should be there for those that need it, but I don't think anyone should be put in the position TO need it because someone else isn't doing what they should. ... Even then, I'm also of the opinion that those who recieve help like that should have to prove on a yearly, sometimes even monthly, basis, that they are doing something to improve their quality of life in order to recieve that aid.


And I think most folks are of that same mind, that some sort of 'safety net' is a good thing; however, it ought to be strictly limited and tirelessly monitored.  Certainly, when it comes to child support, public money should not be used when the non-custodial possesses perfectly good money that can be put towards their offspring.


----------



## Irish_Eyes

hvp05 said:


> Yes.  He doesn't fully grasp the idea of the "taxpayer" or "taxes"; he seems to think the government has its own money, and virtually limitless amonts of it.
> 
> Then again, there is quite a lot that Jimmy doesn't fully grasp.



It must be nice to live in his world. Everyone lives for free cause the government can magically make money appear out of thin air and take care of us.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



Irish_Eyes said:


> So let me get this straight... one parent should get off the hook 100% if they're not going to get married to the other parent? So... if you're the one who would normally be asked for child support, and you refuse to marry the other parent, you shouldn't have to pay? Are you kidding me? You helped make the kid, but because there's no ring on your finger or a piece of paper saying you're married to the other parent, that means you get off the hook no questions asked?



  The separated or absent parent is NOT getting off of any "hook" even if the woman sees it as a hook, because the one with the child is getting the prize, while the parent without their own child is getting the worse part.

To have the child is the best part, and not having the child is the worse end.

You refer to the children as if they are a burden instead of a blessing, and that is because our laws have orchestrated that nonsense.

If a custodial does not want to or can not afford to provide the full custody to their own child(ren) then then give the child(ren) to the other parent or to some one that wants and love the child(ren).

The very idea of giving custody of a child to a parent that can not afford to provide the custody and taking money from the separated parent as Child Support is a foolish thing for a Court to do.



Irish_Eyes said:


> And honestly, most couples who have kids out of wedlock these days ARENT SUITED TO BE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER in the first place. Do you have any IDEA what the studies have shown a home with two parents who do not love each other can do to the children in that home? That children who grow up in a home where there is no love and, in most cases, usually some level of tension between the married couple, end up with emotional and mental stability issues that can rival a child who spent their life being abused.



The Child Support only makes that scenario worse as it forces the unhealthy couple to interact in hostile ways when leaving them alone is the sensible thing to do.

When the one parent already has the prize of the child and the other parent wants gone then let them go and hold onto the prize. Chasing the unwanted parents down for money is not just unproductive but surely it invites unwanted domestic violence too.



Irish_Eyes said:


> You're basically suggesting that we, as a society, should regress a few hundred years where it was expected that if a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, that she had to get married to the man who got her pregnant to save herself and her family the shame. You're also suggesting that a man should be allowed to go around and knock up as many women as he wants, then disappear and not have to pay a dime to help take care of those children.



 Actually I am saying that the women that try to play that both ways are idiotic and self destructive and socially unhealthy.

She does not want to get married, but she wants the father's money, and the law now empowers that trash.



Irish_Eyes said:


> If it's not paying for children, what about those families that depend on that child support payment to make sure that there's food on the table, or clothes on the kid's back?



There are absolutely none - not even one (1) family dependent on receiving the Child Support for their food or any basic need at all.

And the poorest of poor families on welfare that do get paid their Child Support has the State gov keep the Child Support loot and does NOT pay the poorest of the poor families, because by State standards the poorest of the poor families already have all of their needs filled to over flowing.

And that is not my doing - as that is the Federal Law for every State in the USA, that any State can take the Child Support when the Custodial is on federally funded welfare, link HERE.



Irish_Eyes said:


> I'm aware that there are quite a few custodial families out there who may not NEED that extra money, but they're damn sure entitled to it.



  None of them need the Child Support and they are not entitled to one dime, and it is just stolen money that the custodial has no right to. 

And regardless of some claimed "entitlement" it is not the job of the gov or of the Court to enforce such an unneeded claim.



Irish_Eyes said:


> So at this point, you're pretty much calling the kids who benefit from that extra money thieves. As parents, and as law makers, it is the responsibility of adults to make sure that someone speaks for the children, because they cannot speak for themselves.



No, I see the gov and the law and the Courts as the thieves, and the custodials as receiving stolen money, and children are usually ignorant of the crooked dealings and the children are wrongfully alienated from their separated parent.

And the custodials are NOT speaking for their child in regard to Child Support as that is speaking only for their own greed and their spite.



Irish_Eyes said:


> So... the child support payments that make sure a better grade of food is in the kitchen, or there's more gas in the custodial's car so that that child is guaranteed to be able to make it to school if they miss the buss, or to go to practice for a sports team or some other extra curricular activity, is just spoiling the kid?? We should give children the bare minimum of what they need to survive and let a parent who abandoned their kid live in whatever kind of comfort they want to?



  Marriage is the method for two parents to work together for their children, and having laws that make separation and divorce as equivalent to marriage will never succeed and it is destructive to society to continue in this kind of charade.



Irish_Eyes said:


> Actually, that's the kind of stuff that happens everyday. It's rare when one parent can make enough money to ensure that they and their child have decent food, clothes, and in general, a decent quality of living. In most instances, when the money gets tight, that parent makes sacrifices that they never should have had to make, in order to be sure their child was getting what the needed and deserved.



Yes, it takes two or two are better than one, and that is what is meant by marriage.

Now that the gov has taken over the marriage business away from religions, then now the gov needs to promote and strengthen marriage, but no, our idiotic laws are breaking up families and undermining our society as fast as it can.



Irish_Eyes said:


> Meanwhile, the other parent is walking around in new clothes, new shoes, and eating good warm meals, and rarely spares a second thought for those who's lives they have an effect on, even when they're not around.



  I say that is not true and not real, first because very many parents do conform to the thievery of the Child Support, and the law will steal from any parents that do not "voluntarily" pay the thieves, and the other separated parents are either dead broke or unable to be located.

But I say it is irrelevant as to the condition of the separated parents anyway because losing their own children is a big enough punishment in itself, and there is no need to punish the parents any further, and the fact that a separated parent might live comfortably is not a sin or some thing that must be stopped or attacked by law.



Irish_Eyes said:


> You focus to much on making the custodials... the parents who actually STEPPED UP and took responsibility for their kids... the bad guys.



They take stolen money and so the custodial is a dishonest person, a sinner and raising the child(ren) in unworthy conditions by the crooked system.



Irish_Eyes said:


> And you never bother to look at the parents who disappear and don't help raise the kid, but then feel somehow wronged when they want to be in that child's life(usually without taking any responsibility), and are told no.



  The parents still have a duty to their children just as the children have a duty to both of their real parents, and to put money in the way of that destroys the family unit.

The families let the laws destroy their own members, and the law does it with venom.



Irish_Eyes said:


> What about the effect it has on the kid when a father disappears and never bothers to come visit, never sends a child support check, and then YEARS pass by, and suddenly he shows up on the front step and expects to be treated like he has some sort of right to be there. What about what it tells that kid? Tells them that "dad" will love them so long as it's convenient for him, and if it's not, well... good luck on ever seeing him or feeling like you're important to him.



We all have to deal with what we have.

It starts out rotten many times, but with effort then it improves.

Every family has troubles and hostilities and old bitternesses and that is reality, and to mature we must find a way of bringing love out of hell.


----------



## Irish_Eyes

VoteJP said:


> The separated or absent parent is NOT getting off of any "hook" even if the woman sees it as a hook, because the one with the child is getting the prize, while the parent without their own child is getting the worse part.
> 
> To have the child is the best part, and not having the child is the worse end.
> 
> You refer to the children as if they are a burden instead of a blessing, and that is because our laws have orchestrated that nonsense.
> 
> If a custodial does not want to or can not afford to provide the full custody to their own child(ren) then then give the child(ren) to the other parent or to some one that wants and love the child(ren).
> 
> The very idea of giving custody of a child to a parent that can not afford to provide the custody and taking money from the separated parent as Child Support is a foolish thing for a Court to do.
> 
> 
> 
> The Child Support only makes that scenario worse as it forces the unhealthy couple to interact in hostile ways when leaving them alone is the sensible thing to do.
> 
> When the one parent already has the prize of the child and the other parent wants gone then let them go and hold onto the prize. Chasing the unwanted parents down for money is not just unproductive but surely it invites unwanted domestic violence too.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am saying that the women that try to play that both ways are idiotic and self destructive and socially unhealthy.
> 
> She does not want to get married, but she wants the father's money, and the law now empowers that trash.
> 
> 
> 
> There are absolutely none - not even one (1) family dependent on receiving the Child Support for their food or any basic need at all.
> 
> And the poorest of poor families on welfare that do get paid their Child Support has the State gov keep the Child Support loot and does NOT pay the poorest of the poor families, because by State standards the poorest of the poor families already have all of their needs filled to over flowing.
> 
> And that is not my doing - as that is the Federal Law for every State in the USA, that any State can take the Child Support when the Custodial is on federally funded welfare, link HERE.
> 
> 
> 
> None of them need the Child Support and they are not entitled to one dime, and it is just stolen money that the custodial has no right to.
> 
> And regardless of some claimed "entitlement" it is not the job of the gov or of the Court to enforce such an unneeded claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I see the gov and the law and the Courts as the thieves, and the custodials as receiving stolen money, and children are usually ignorant of the crooked dealings and the children are wrongfully alienated from their separated parent.
> 
> And the custodials are NOT speaking for their child in regard to Child Support as that is speaking only for their own greed and their spite.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the method for two parents to work together for their children, and having laws that make separation and divorce as equivalent to marriage will never succeed and it is destructive to society to continue in this kind of charade.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it takes two or two are better than one, and that is what is meant by marriage.
> 
> Now that the gov has taken over the marriage business away from religions, then now the gov needs to promote and strengthen marriage, but no, our idiotic laws are breaking up families and undermining our society as fast as it can.
> 
> 
> 
> I say that is not true and not real, first because very many parents do conform to the thievery of the Child Support, and the law will steal from any parents that do not "voluntarily" pay the thieves, and the other separated parents are either dead broke or unable to be located.
> 
> But I say it is irrelevant as to the condition of the separated parents anyway because losing their own children is a big enough punishment in itself, and there is no need to punish the parents any further, and the fact that a separated parent might live comfortably is not a sin or some thing that must be stopped or attacked by law.
> 
> 
> 
> They take stolen money and so the custodial is a dishonest person, a sinner and raising the child(ren) in unworthy conditions by the crooked system.
> 
> 
> 
> The parents still have a duty to their children just as the children have a duty to both of their real parents, and to put money in the way of that destroys the family unit.
> 
> The families let the laws destroy their own members, and the law does it with venom.
> 
> 
> 
> We all have to deal with what we have.
> 
> It starts out rotten many times, but with effort then it improves.
> 
> Every family has troubles and hostilities and old bitternesses and that is reality, and to mature we must find a way of bringing love out of hell.



OK... Seriously... What PLANET are you living on? It must be nice to live in your world. Life seems so damn simple where you come from.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



Irish_Eyes said:


> OK... Seriously... What PLANET are you living on? It must be nice to live in your world. Life seems so damn simple where you come from.





This_person said:


> He ignores or finds irrelevant pretty much all of reality, and therefore doesn't need any complex ideas like "life", "truth", etc.



  So both of you see "What planet" am I living on? as me ignoring reality and "complex" ideas of truth, etc.

Therefore the "truth" is that she comes from Venus and I come from Mars, and T_p has his own place some where unknown.


........    ................    ................


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



VoteJP said:


> So both of you see "What planet" am I living on? as me ignoring reality and "complex" ideas of truth, etc.
> 
> Therefore the "truth" is that she comes from Venus and I come from Mars, and T_p has his own place some where unknown.



........    ................    ................


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> You should really come over and visit reality some time.



  You really need to work on improving your sense of humor, because humor is a part of reality too.

And you are not the one that defines "reality" for other people.

It is true that as Governor I will put an end to many of your ignorant realities, but it will make you a better person afterward.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> "Reality" isn't defined by any person for another.  Reality just is.
> 
> You should try and get there.



  Yes, yes, dear T_p, I will try to get there.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> When you're governor, right?  Or, is it state's rep?  Or, is it federal rep?
> 
> Now, that's humor there!  You do have me beat on that one!



  I got to go - be back in a few hours or more.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



VoteJP said:


> So both of you see "What planet" am I living on? as me ignoring reality and "complex" ideas of truth, etc.
> 
> Therefore the "truth" is that she comes from Venus and I come from Mars, and T_p has his own place some where unknown.



........    ................    ................


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> You're repeating yourself, Jimmy



   That was the point - repeated.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



VoteJP said:


> A significant point of injustice in the Child Support Laws is that when a parent is brought to Court for failure to pay the c/s then the question of do they plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" only means did they pay the child support or not?
> 
> If the Child Support was proved to have been paid then the parent becomes NOT GUILTY, and if the child support was not paid then the parents are GUILTY.
> 
> So in the c/s cases there really is no pleading of "guilty or not guilty" because if they do not have the cash paid then the parents are always GUILTY.
> 
> Therefore the parents can not give any defense as in explaining that they are dead-broke, or crippled injured, were Hospitalized or comatose, no explanations of being unemployed or laid off, had no money, none of that is acceptable and the Court Judge will tell any parent to shut-up that kind of defense because it is all inadmissible to the Court and the only ONLY question of guilt is did the parent pay or not?
> 
> The law is created that way so then the Court can NOT decide any account of justice or right from wrong and the parents are thereby denied the ability to give any honest defense and as such it is always an unjust procedure, and the penalty is either 3 years in State prison or 5 years in Federal prison just for failure to pay with no regard for the reasons or for the truth. And if the parent did have any assets or property or bank accounts then the law can and will pillage and plunder any assets available before the parents ever get to the Court, and in fact if any of the parents do raise the money and pay the Child Support then the parent will not go to jail and the Court proceedings will be terminated immediately upon payment because it is only concerned with taking the parents' money, and the Court serves as just an unreasonable collection tool for the single purpose of forcibly collecting cold cash.
> 
> And one might think that if the parent does pay the Child Support instead of going to jail that this proves they were "deadbeats" that were just holding out - but no. When faced with incarceration the parents will often sell their last possessions, or their own family members (the children's extended family) will very often pay the Child Support demands in order to stop their loved one from going to jail. It really is the same old process of the "Debtor's Prison" where the debtor's family would pay the debt to get their loved ones out of those prisons, so here again the children are compromised by stealing the family's money and calling it support of those same children when everyone concerned can see it is all a damned lie, because the paying parent really was dead-broke and it was their family that got legally robbed by the c/s system.
> 
> Sad story but very real indeed.



Bump.



.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



VoteJP said:


> It is not the same at all.
> 
> In Child Support a parents is put in jail simply for being poor which means the parents has done nothing to merit a crime and thereby guilty of nothing.
> 
> A person speeding is in fact physically doing a crime.
> 
> And in violent crimes like murder than the accused "Defendant" can argue that it was done in self defense, or the death was an accident, or some one else killed the person, or temporary insanity, and other forms of legal defense in a Court of law.
> 
> It is a huge big difference in c/s cases, and an unjust difference.



BUMP


.


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> Bumpity bump



If you'd stop this crap, he'd go away. Why do you give him what he craves?


----------



## hvp05

This_person said:


> After a nuclear holocaust, JPC will be campaigning to be president of the cockroaches






> (and, garnering 0.6% of the vote).


Which will make him, in his perception, wildly popular and he will link to it every day so that the other roaches remember the .6% of a dent he made.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



MMDad said:


> If you'd stop this crap, he'd go away. Why do you give him what he craves?



He has no power and little influence over anything that I do.

It makes no difference if he comes or goes.

But that does not apply to every other poster as it just applies to the T_p because of his style.



.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> Have you learned yet that the state does not collect and keep child support payments?
> 
> Have you learned yet that there are children suffering because of lack of child support?



Years ago you gave me the link showing the State keeps the Child Support loot from the poorest of the poor families, and I have kept that link ever after, and here it is below;

Link = See Question #7 or "Q7" on the link HERE.

Therefore since the States DOES take and keep the c/s loot from the poorest of poor families, then all other families receiving their Child Support are living at a higher standard than the poorest of the poor, and that means the Child Support that does get paid is only used for extras and luxuries or to serve the custodial's self interest - being particularly to subsidize the custodial's adulteries.

So in direct answer to your two questions above - the answers are "no" and "no".




.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> If, and only if, it is paying back a loan to the recipient from the state.
> 
> Otherwise, all moneys are dispersed within two days.
> 
> Or, do you feel that people shouldn't pay back their loans?



See "MMDad" this kind of posting is why T_p does not make any difference.

If anything he makes me to look better, which I do not need.

To T_p = nobody is loaning anything in those exchanges, as welfare is not a loan, the AFDC is not a loan, the Child Support is no loan, and nothing is ever paid back.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Therefore since the States DOES take and keep the c/s loot from the poorest of poor families


Let's see what the state actually says...





> If you receive Temporary Cash Assistance, any child support payments collected will be kept by the State as reimbursement.  If you no longer receive Temporary Cash Assistance, your current support, as well as any payments made on arrears due you, will be mailed to you.


The part you are addressing, obviously, is the first line, an "If... then" special circumstance that does not even apply to many, possibly most, custodial parents who receive CS.

Secondly, the money is kept as *reimbursement* for funds it (the state) has paid.  So the greater question here is not "Why is the state withholding that money?", but "Why can't Jimmy comprehend this simple concept on his own?"

Thirdly, the irony is that if the non-custodial would pay their ordered support there would be no need for the TCA, and further, no need for the state to withhold one single dollar from the payments.

I included the second sentence because it's probably the first time you have seen it, as I think you read the one portion of the first sentence and stopped there.  Reality is so much nicer when you see everything that's around... unless you're JPC and all those other bits contradict you at every turn.   




> then all other families receiving their Child Support are living at a higher standard than the poorest of the poor


I know I have asked this before, but I don't remember your answer:  why is it okay for the state (via TCA, welfare, etc.) to support a family but not a non-custodial?  If a custodial parent needed $310 dollars more a month to adequately support his/her child - and I'm talking about purchasing food, clothes, etc., not "luxuries" - you would call the state providing that money justifiable, but the non-custodial providing the same amount "stealing" and "extra cash".

Do you realize this makes absolutely no sense to those of us who don't live inside your bubble?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> Let's see what the state actually says...The part you are addressing, obviously, is the first line, an "If... then" special circumstance that does not even apply to many, possibly most, custodial parents who receive CS.



It ONLY only applies to the poorest of the poor custodial parents.

Every other custodial is richer = "R-I-C-H-E-R" as in these are the poorest and all other custodial parents have much more money.

The State takes and keeps the Child Support loot away from the poorest of the poor families.

And so the Child Support given to richer custodial parents is not needed either as it is just stolen money to pay for nothing.

Poor parents need assistance, and richer parents do not need more money.



hvp05 said:


> Secondly, the money is kept as *reimbursement* for funds it (the state) has paid.  So the greater question here is not "Why is the state withholding that money?"



The State withholds the Child Support because not the Custodial nor the children need that money.

The poorest families on welfare have all of their needs provided to overflowing because the welfare gives them everything needed, and so the State does not give them the extra money as paid in Child Support. 

And in this society the gov probably figures that if they give more money (the Child Support) to the poor families then the Custodial might go out and buy narcotics or booze or pay for other debaucheries with the extra money. And that is what many of the richer Custodial parents are known to do with their stolen Child Support loot. 

Welfare gives only what is needed and no luxuries.



hvp05 said:


> Thirdly, the irony is that if the non-custodial would pay their ordered support there would be no need for the TCA, and further, no need for the state to withhold one single dollar from the payments.



If that were true then the State would not be taking the Child Support and keeping the loot.

If there was no need for the TCA then the State would not authorize it.

So that claim (or irony) is not real.



hvp05 said:


> I know I have asked this before, but I don't remember your answer:  why is it okay for the state (via TCA, welfare, etc.) to support a family but not a non-custodial?  If a custodial parent needed $310 dollars more a month to adequately support his/her child - and I'm talking about purchasing food, clothes, etc., not "luxuries" - you would call the state providing that money justifiable, but the non-custodial providing the same amount "stealing" and "extra cash".



Because welfare is a demanded and required function of every gov worldwide and all through history, and any gov that fails to provide for its needy citizens will not last long, and history is full of examples proving this to be true. 

But two (2) parents and their child(ren) are not to be a gov program because that exceeds the boundaries of any gov and it will destroy the social structure accordingly, and the 2 parents need to be married and the children need to have both parents (not their money) and anything that undermines the union of the 2 parents (Child Support and custody laws) will and does harm everyone concerned. 



hvp05 said:


> Do you realize this makes absolutely no sense to those of us who don't live inside your bubble?



I really do understand that and this is why I take all of the garbage thrown at me and I keep trying to explain the message in spite of it.

I have been-there and done-that throughout the Child Support system and I do know many things that others do not, and that is why I tell it.



.


----------



## bcp

Just so I understand this

 The government, making a parent pay for the support of their own child is theft.

 yet

 The government, making someone pay for the support or insurance of someone else that they dont even know is fair, just, and perfectly ok.

 Just trying to understand the way you think things should work.

 to me it sounds like this.

 anything that forces Jimmy to pay money is theft.
 and
 anything that forces someone else to pay for Jimmy is good.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The State takes and keeps the Child Support loot away from the poorest of the poor families.


You will continue to be a lost cause as long as you willfully omit and ignore the facts.  For crap's sake, it's written in plain English, Jimmy.  But hey, I know you have your one-man agenda to prop up, so good luck on your journey into the abyss.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> You will continue to be a lost cause as long as you willfully omit and ignore the facts.  For crap's sake, it's written in plain English, Jimmy.  But hey, I know you have your one-man agenda to prop up, so good luck on your journey into the abyss.



Simple English and the law is like this;

A poor single Mom (just example) living on welfare with no job, then the separated Dad pays $100 per week as Child Support and the State takes that c/s $100 and does not give the money to the woman and not to the child.

The State keeps the Child Support from the poorest of poor parents even if the separated parents do pay the thieves.

So that Child Support does not support the child as it supports the State treasury.

If you can not deal with that reality, or you try to mis-justify it, then that is your own failing.



.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Simple English and the law is like this;
> 
> A poor single Mom (just example) living on welfare with no job, then the separated Dad pays $100 per week as Child Support and the State takes that c/s $100 and does not give the money to the woman and not to the child.
> 
> The State keeps the Child Support from the poorest of poor parents even if the separated parents do pay the thieves.
> 
> So that Child Support does not support the child as it supports the State treasury.
> 
> If you can not deal with that reality, or you try to mis-justify it, then that is your own failing.
> 
> 
> 
> .


look at it like this.
 While the POS absent parent is not paying support, the state is supplying money to the responsible parent so they can feed the child.
 then, when POS is caught up with, and they manage to get some money from him, they use it like a repayment on a loan.

 If they keep the money, its only to help offset the cost to the public brought on by a worthless POS that expects society to pay his/her way.

In this example, you are the POS.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Simple English and the law is like this


   Only to you, Jimmah...


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> Only to you, Jimmah...



Yes, using an example works well.

And I must point out that the parents in jail are mostly parents paying $100 per week (or much less) and in that case a single Mom would need to get at least $500 *per week* to equal the welfare, and that amount for a working poor parent would be impossible and it would be over $2,000 *per month* just to get the custodial off of the welfare.

And here in St Mary's County the rent is near $900 per month plus utility cost (approx $200-300) for a one bedroom apartment, so that is $300 per week just for rent.

So the poorest of the poor families on Welfare are never going to get enough Child Support and so the State steals every penny of it, and then the Child Support claims to help children when it is ONLY helping to feed the State.


.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Yes, using an example works well.
> 
> And I must point out that the parents in jail are mostly parents paying $100 per week (or much less) and in that case a single Mom would need to get at least $500 *per week* to equal the welfare, and that amount for a working poor parent would be impossible and it would be over $2,000 *per month* just to get the custodial off of the welfare.
> 
> And here in St Mary's County the rent is near $900 per month plus utility cost (approx $200-300) for a one bedroom apartment, so that is $300 per week just for rent.
> 
> So the poorest of the poor families on Welfare are never going to get enough Child Support and so the State steals every penny of it, and then the Child Support claims to help children when it is ONLY helping to feed the State.
> 
> 
> .


 so using your own numbers.
 the state taxpayers contribute 2000 a month to support the children of the worthless POS that refuses to pay.
 the amount that the POS pays is around 100 a week, or 400 a month.

 if the state collects the 400 a month, while paying out 2000 a month, the taxpayer is still left paying 1600 a month, yet for some reason, you are under the impression that the state is stealing the money from the POS.

 I think the only people being ripped off in your example would be the taxpayers that are left paying for your children.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



bcp said:


> so using your own numbers.
> the state taxpayers contribute 2000 a month to support the children of the worthless POS that refuses to pay.
> the amount that the POS pays is around 100 a week, or 400 a month.
> 
> if the state collects the 400 a month, while paying out 2000 a month, the taxpayer is still left paying 1600 a month, yet for some reason, you are under the impression that the state is stealing the money from the POS.
> 
> I think the only people being ripped off in your example would be the taxpayers that are left paying for your children.



My point was and remain that the Child Support paid does NOT support the children.

And the children already have everything they need to overflowing.

If you or anyone is concerned about tax money then stealing that $400 or even steal $2,000 is nothing because when one (just 1 or each 1) of those dead broke parents get put into jail then the taxes pay over $20,000 per year TRYING to collect 5,000-12,000 which never gets paid.

And the taxes pay big to have Child Support collection workers and their offices and perks and going to Court and paying the Judges and etc., etc. 

We pay a fortune to forcibly collect the Child Support that never even supports the children.


.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> My point was and remain that the Child Support paid does NOT support the children.
> 
> And the children already have everything they need to overflowing.
> 
> If you or anyone is concerned about tax money then stealing that $400 or even steal $2,000 is nothing because when one (just 1 or each 1) of those dead broke parents get put into jail then the taxes pay over $20,000 per year TRYING to collect 5,000-12,000 which never gets paid.
> 
> And the taxes pay big to have Child Support collection workers and their offices and perks and going to Court and paying the Judges and etc., etc.
> 
> We pay a fortune to forcibly collect the Child Support that never even supports the children.
> 
> 
> .


and even with these laws we have how many not making the payments?

 I wonder, how many more would we have to support if there were no law enforcing responsibility for your children.

 I would rather pay jail costs for 1 and save the payments on 10, than drop the laws and pay for all of the children abandoned by their sperm donars.


----------



## bcp

and by the way think of this.
 that cost to house a prisoner is not really as high as some like to make it out to be.

 even if that jail cell is sitting empty, we still pay to heat and cool it, we pay to maintain it, we pay to maintain the building it sets in, we still pay a guard to walk past that empty cell. And in the case of the "dead broke" we still pay for medical and housing. Look at you, how much do you take from the system because of your fake disability? I bet that putting you in jail would actually be an overall savings to the taxpayer.
 We still pay the judge to sit in his courtroom even if there is no case to be heard.
 so, the actual cost added per prisoner is not really that great. not having him there might save us 10k per year.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> So, do you really think someone with a grand total of <$2000 net worth has "everything they need to overflowing"?  Are you really that unaware of what things cost since you were never involved with raising a child?



No, it is a matter of knowing what welfare provides.

In that welfare provides to those poorest of poor families their housing and food stamps and full medical coverage and much more - plus the TCA, so the welfare does provide everything the family needs to overflowing, and then taking the Child Support by the State does not harm those families because they do not need the Child Support as they already have all of their needs filled.

Welfare provides everything so then the poorest need nothing including they do not need the Child Support when it does get paid.

Every other family NOT on welfare have over top of the welfare guidelines so they have the same equivalence of needs filled but then they get their Child Support payments as extra money and not out of being needed.

My point remains that the claim that the "Child Support" actually *supports-the-child* is thus a total fraud.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> And your point continues to be invalidated.
> 
> The Child Support is not withheld to pay back all of welfare programs.  Only TCA.  Thus, if they have more than $2,000 net worth (including those welfare monies), they are not eligible for TCA, thus the child support would not be withheld to pay back the TCA.



You equate things as if it is a "point spread" in some "sports game" and it does not equate like that.

That equation means that the State guidelines determine that amount as the basic amount to fill the needs of the family and thereafter or families above that amount get the Child Support as extra money as in luxuries or "over and above" the family need.

Therefore the Child Support is NOT needed and it is never needed because beyond or above this State criteria then any and all children already have all of their needs filled.

So = the claim that the "Child Support" actually supports-the-child is thus a total fraud.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> So, you finally agree that the state does not keep virtually anybody's child support?  Good!



I have said it a hundred times and I am happy to say it here again;

The State steals the Child Support payments from the poorest of the poor custodial parents and their children on welfare.

The State does NOT steal the c/s from the richer parents but ONLY from the poorest of the poor.



This_person said:


> However, you act as though the bare minimum is more than sufficient.  It's not, and it's that simple.  If the child can have more, and the parents are not both equally supporting the child, then the parent not providing directly for the child is the one at fault.
> 
> Having more than the minimum means the child has a better life.  That means the child support actually supports the child's welfare.



And this makes you a thief, and you are a supporter of thievery.

Not stealing for need, but stealing for greed.

*"Thou shalt not steal"* - which is not a State law and not a Federal law.


.


----------



## bcp

This_person said:


> So, you finally agree that the state does not keep virtually anybody's child support? Good!
> 
> However, you act as though the bare minimum is more than sufficient. It's not, and it's that simple. If the child can have more, and the parents are not both equally supporting the child, then the parent not providing directly for the child is the one at fault.
> 
> Having more than the minimum means the child has a better life. That means the child support actually supports the child's welfare.


no you have it wrong.
 he expects others to pay for the families instead of those responsible for that family.

 typical liberal welfare leach attitude.

 I so badly would love to take him down to Carolina with me and have him explain this to some of my friends over a beer.


----------



## blondie4512

So let me get this straight.... 

Because I make enough money to provide food and a roof over mine and my childs head, means I shouldn't recieve child support? For the child that it took me plus one other to make? But because I am the responsible one we don't deserve more? 

I have a fairly decent job, making more than most my age. I have 1 child who has more needs than just food and a home.. She needs clothing (I'm not materialistic by any means I know in 3 months she's gonna grow out of anything I buy her so I don't go above and beyond on cloths) but there is extra circular activities, for which in order to recieve "scholarships" I don't make the pay grade. I know this isn't a need but why does she have to do without, I will do without before my kid does. But can't he ever go without? Why does he get to drive the expedition? When he makes far less money than I do and has achieved nothing in his life time, (but making a beautiful kid) Why does the court order him to pay so much a month and let him get buy with paying a few hundred a few months only to keep himself out of jail. Why if I don't feed my kid, clothe her, bath her and take care of her like any responsible parent does would I get charged with neglect and yet he doesn't? Just because the woman give birth to the child doesn't mean she bares all responsibility for that child. 

Working my way from the bottom I think once I hit about 8-9 bucks an hour I lost all gov't assistance which is know way enough to raise a kid on in this area...


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



blondie4512 said:


> So let me get this straight....
> 
> Because I make enough money to provide food and a roof over mine and my childs head, means I shouldn't receive child support? For the child that it took me plus one other to make? But because I am the responsible one we don't deserve more?
> 
> I have a fairly decent job, making more than most my age. I have 1 child who has more needs than just food and a home.. She needs clothing (I'm not materialistic by any means I know in 3 months she's gonna grow out of anything I buy her so I don't go above and beyond on cloths) but there is extra circular activities, for which in order to receive "scholarships" I don't make the pay grade. I know this isn't a need but why does she have to do without, I will do without before my kid does. But can't he ever go without? Why does he get to drive the expedition? When he makes far less money than I do and has achieved nothing in his life time, (but making a beautiful kid) Why does the court order him to pay so much a month and let him get buy with paying a few hundred a few months only to keep himself out of jail. Why if I don't feed my kid, clothe her, bath her and take care of her like any responsible parent does would I get charged with neglect and yet he doesn't? Just because the woman give birth to the child doesn't mean she bares all responsibility for that child.
> 
> Working my way from the bottom I think once I hit about 8-9 bucks an hour I lost all gov't assistance which is know way enough to raise a kid on in this area...



Hi, and welcome to this discussion.

Since you have the child then you have the best part as you have the prize, the father is missing out and he is the one being alienated.

Blame it on him is fine, but you still won the prize and you are blessed to have your daughter and it is wrong to view her as a burden or as a liability because she is a blessing from God.

And she needs her father even if you do not want him around, but if you are going to demand his money then it is up to you to see to it that he and his daughter have a healthy and productive relationship too.

What was necessary was for you to marry (or live with) the child's Dad, and that is not just you as that is how human parents are to raise their children is together as in a marriage, and the dysfunction you describe is because you are separated from the Dad instead of living with him.

Now if you do not want anything to do with the Dad then you have effectively stolen his daughter from him and the child will be harmed by that because children need NEED both of their parents.

They need the parent and not the parent's money, and the money does go along with the parent, as if he sees his daughter then he will freely provide for her because that is what all parents do without any force at all.

You do not need the law to go steal the Dad's money as all you have to do is invite him over to see his daughter and let human nature do the rest.

If you want your daughter to grow up strong and brave then you have to lead the way, and that means through her Dad and not the law.


.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> Hi, and welcome to this discussion.
> 
> Since you have the child then you have the best part as you have the prize, the father is missing out and he is the one being alienated.
> 
> Blame it on him is fine, but you still won the prize and you are blessed to have your daughter and it is wrong to view her as a burden or as a liability because she is a blessing from God.
> 
> And she needs her father even if you do not want him around, but if you are going to demand his money then it is up to you to see to it that he and his daughter have a healthy and productive relationship too.
> 
> What was necessary was for you to marry (or live with) the child's Dad, and that is not just you as that is how human parents are to raise their children is together as in a marriage, and the dysfunction you describe is because you are separated from the Dad instead of living with him.
> 
> Now if you do not want anything to do with the Dad then you have effectively stolen his daughter from him and the child will be harmed by that because children need NEED both of their parents.
> 
> They need the parent and not the parent's money, and the money does go along with the parent, as if he sees his daughter then he will freely provide for her because that is what all parents do without any force at all.
> 
> You do not need the law to go steal the Dad's money as all you have to do is invite him over to see his daughter and let human nature do the rest.
> 
> If you want your daughter to grow up strong and brave then you have to lead the way, and that means through her Dad and not the law.
> 
> 
> .



I knew I shouldn't have read cuSICKs post.  I think I just threw up in my mouth.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



Highlander said:


> I knew I shouldn't have read cuSICKs post.  I think I just threw up in my mouth.



I say that is very fitting for you.

As the Bible says; A dog swallows its own vomit.


.


----------



## hvp05

blondie4512 said:


> So let me get this straight....


I can already tell you, you have it straight.  He's the crackpot.  Every bit of proof posed to counter him bounces off and he rolls right along believing his delusions.  He conjures his own word definitions and shelters himself in his own little bubble.  It can be entertaining in a way, but the hope of actually gaining ground on changing his mind is a lost cause.

Browse through his couple other threads here in Elections; it won't take you long to realize how dysfunctional he is.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> I say that is very fitting for you.
> 
> As the Bible says; A dog swallows its own vomit.
> 
> 
> .


Doesnt the Bible also say that you reap what you sow? oh little broken convict man living out of the taxpayers dollar?


----------



## blondie4512

VoteJP said:


> Hi, and welcome to this discussion.
> 
> Since you have the child then you have the best part as you have the prize, the father is missing out and he is the one being alienated.
> 
> he is not being alienated, he has choosen on his own free will to alienate himself.  I would want nothing more than my daughter to have a nice healthy relationship with her father.
> 
> Blame it on him is fine, but you still won the prize and you are blessed to have your daughter and it is wrong to view her as a burden or as a liability because she is a blessing from God.
> 
> I have never once viewed my daughter as a burden or a liability I have taken full responsibility of her since the day she was born and will continue to do so for the rest of her life.
> 
> And she needs her father even if you do not want him around, but if you are going to demand his money then it is up to you to see to it that he and his daughter have a healthy and productive relationship too.
> 
> I will not force my daughter on her father. He knows where she is and how to see her if he doesn't make and attempt thats on him. Like I said it would be great if he did, then I wouldn't have to answer the question again, of, Why doesn't my daddy love me?
> 
> What was necessary was for you to marry (or live with) the child's Dad, and that is not just you as that is how human parents are to raise their children is together as in a marriage, and the dysfunction you describe is because you are separated from the Dad instead of living with him.
> 
> I was very young when I got pregnant and it didn't take me long to realize that the man who impregnated me would never be the one for me, he was/is a liar and a manipulater and sorry but I nor anyone deserves to be treated that way. Granted I should of been aware of this when we started dating but like I said I was young, but I still wouldn't take it back for anything in the world I love my daughter and couldn't begin to imagine my life without her
> 
> Now if you do not want anything to do with the Dad then you have effectively stolen his daughter from him and the child will be harmed by that because children need NEED both of their parents.
> 
> Again thats on him
> 
> They need the parent and not the parent's money, and the money does go along with the parent, as if he sees his daughter then he will freely provide for her because that is what all parents do without any force at all.
> 
> Are you on drugs?
> 
> You do not need the law to go steal the Dad's money as all you have to do is invite him over to see his daughter and let human nature do the rest.
> 
> He knows where we live
> 
> If you want your daughter to grow up strong and brave then you have to lead the way, and that means through her Dad and not the law.
> 
> My daugher is very strong, for the simple fact that she doesn't need her dad. At this point she needs her mother to take care of her and provide for her as I do. But having a very strong, independent mother, she will no doubt grow up to be the same. I have not thought her to be a man hater but definitely do teach her that the only person she can depend/count on in her life is herself. That will get her where she needs to be.
> 
> .





You are obviously pretty clueless. And will never get it. I'm guessing you probably got a few kids yourself you don't pay child support for. And this is your wierd way of justifying yourself...


----------



## Highlander

blondie4512 said:


> You are obviously pretty clueless. And will never get it. I'm guessing you probably got a few kids yourself you don't pay child support for. And this is your wierd way of justifying yourself...



You figured cuSICK out quickly.  Yes, he is clueless.  Fortunately, he only had one child.


----------



## blondie4512

This_person said:


> He has one that he admittedly deserted "to let them figure it out for themselves".  Here, let me let _him_ explain it, in an old screen name of his:Since then, he wanted to come back to this God-forsaken area, but knew he'd have to show some responsibility to his child if he did.  So, instead, he vandalized some government property so he could be thrown in jail and two things would happen - he wouldn't have to try and figure out a way to get welfare anymore because he'd be clothed, fed, and housed by the taxpayers directly, and his child support arrears would stop going up because of his change of status.  So, he willingly chose, through his actions, to continue to not be there for his child physically, emotionally, and fiscally.
> 
> Then, when his ex-wife died, his son's step-dad told the system not to worry about the years of arrears.  Like a true man, the step-dad assumed the responsibilities Jimmy forsake to Jimmy's own namesake.
> 
> The son then grew up to be a POS like his father.  However, when push came to shove, the son decided to grow a pair and pay his support to his child.  Something Jimmy publicly berates him for.



Yet he preaches all this about alienating the father bull$hit? 

Well he sounds like a winner!


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



			
				LusbyMom said:
			
		

>



So long as you keep the law between your children and their Dad then your family will never function properly, and there will never be peace.

The custodial has no business hiding behind the law.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



blondie4512 said:


> My daughter is very strong, for the simple fact that she doesn't need her dad. At this point she needs her mother to take care of her and provide for her as I do. But having a very strong, independent mother, she will no doubt grow up to be the same. I have not thought her to be a man hater but definitely do teach her that the only person she can depend/count on in her life is herself. That will get her where she needs to be.



She needs her real Dad whether you like that or not, and the alienation will hurt her in many ways.

Having custody means providing all the child needs and that means it is the custodial parent that has the job of NOT alienating the separated parent. 



blondie4512 said:


> I'm guessing you probably got a few kids yourself you don't pay child support for. And this is your weird way of justifying yourself...



I had one son who is now 33, and my own Child Support case is closed and over long years ago.

So there is nothing to justify for me, and my intention is to help other families being ruined by the Child Support and Custody laws.


.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> So long as you keep the law between your children and their Dad then your family will never function properly, and there will never be peace.
> 
> The custodial has no business hiding behind the law.
> 
> 
> .



Sometimes you have to use the law when a man doesn't have enough balls to grow up and be a father.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> So long as you keep the law between your children and their Dad then your family will never function properly, and there will never be peace.
> 
> The custodial has no business hiding behind the law.
> 
> 
> .



So should your ex should have followed you around the country when you deserted your son? Now that sounds like a properly functioning family.


----------



## Toxick

LusbyMom said:


> Sometimes you have to use the law when a man doesn't have enough balls to grow up and be a father.





According to him, people magically start acting their age and become good, kind, loving people when they have a child. "It's nature".

Rational people understand this is a delusion, yet he clings to this delusion with a tenacity the likes of which I have never seen. Until you get him to overcome this delusion then arguing with him is like ... well, there are no good analogies. Arguing with him is like no other experience available to mankind.

And thank the Good Lord for that.


----------



## blondie4512

VoteJP said:


> She needs her real Dad whether you like that or not, and the alienation will hurt her in many ways.
> 
> Having custody means providing all the child needs and that means it is the custodial parent that has the job of NOT alienating the separated parent.
> 
> 
> 
> I had one son who is now 33, and my own Child Support case is closed and over long years ago.
> 
> So there is nothing to justify for me, and my intention is to help other families being ruined by the Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> 
> .




Did you miss the part where I said he chooses to alienate himself??? I guess you think I'm supposed to just show up on his doorstep with my daughter who for 1 has never met this man a day in her life and just be like hey here's your daughter, please be a part of her life and he is gonna say ok and its all gonna be merry?!?! I see showing up to some run down trailer, with who in the hell knows what's goin on it that place but I can assure you it would be nowhere I would let my child go near.. And him probably slamming the door in her face then I get to be the one to console her on  her heart break... Yea I think I'll pass but I'm glad you live in this delusional world where everyone one is perfect and this stuff doesn't happen... Again helping to justify your own screw ups as a father...


----------



## LusbyMom

blondie4512 said:


> *Did you miss the part where I said he chooses to alienate himself???* I guess you think I'm supposed to just show up on his doorstep with my daughter who for 1 has never met this man a day in her life and just be like hey here's your daughter, please be a part of her life and he is gonna say ok and its all gonna be merry?!?! I see showing up to some run down trailer, with who in the hell knows what's goin on it that place but I can assure you it would be nowhere I would let my child go near.. And him probably slamming the door in her face then I get to be the one to console her on  her heart break... Yea I think I'll pass but I'm glad you live in this delusional world where everyone one is perfect and this stuff doesn't happen... Again helping to justify your own screw ups as a father...



Of course it's not his fault.. he didn't choose that. It's your fault and it's your responsibility to make sure she sees him.  

He really has some warped logic


----------



## bcp

blondie4512 said:


> Did you miss the part where I said he chooses to alienate himself??? I guess you think I'm supposed to just show up on his doorstep with my daughter who for 1 has never met this man a day in her life and just be like hey here's your daughter, please be a part of her life and he is gonna say ok and its all gonna be merry?!?! I see showing up to some run down trailer, with who in the hell knows what's goin on it that place but I can assure you it would be nowhere I would let my child go near.. And him probably slamming the door in her face then I get to be the one to console her on her heart break... Yea I think I'll pass but I'm glad you live in this delusional world where everyone one is perfect and this stuff doesn't happen... Again helping to justify your own screw ups as a father...


 If I had a child floating around out there that I didnt know about, I would certainly not slam the door in their face should they suddenly show up.

 might be some proof required though.


----------



## Highlander

blondie4512 said:


> Did you miss the part where I said he chooses to alienate himself??? I guess you think I'm supposed to just show up on his doorstep with my daughter who for 1 has never met this man a day in her life and just be like hey here's your daughter, please be a part of her life and he is gonna say ok and its all gonna be merry?!?! I see showing up to some run down trailer, with who in the hell knows what's goin on it that place but I can assure you it would be nowhere I would let my child go near.. And him probably slamming the door in her face then I get to be the one to console her on  her heart break... Yea I think I'll pass but I'm glad you live in this delusional world where everyone one is perfect and this stuff doesn't happen... Again helping to justify your own screw ups as a father...



Do yourself a favor Blondie and don't waste too much time trying to reason with cuSICK.  He is a pathetic, delusional little man and you'd find yourself having a more intelligent dialogue with a tree stump.


----------



## blondie4512

bcp said:


> If I had a child floating around out there that I didnt know about, I would certainly not slam the door in their face should they suddenly show up.
> 
> might be some proof required though.



Oh he knows she exist, but could just care less...


----------



## blondie4512

Highlander said:


> Do yourself a favor Blondie and don't waste too much time trying to reason with cuSICK.  He is a pathetic, delusional little man and you'd find yourself having a more intelligent dialogue with a tree stump.



I'm beginning to realize this...


----------



## Toxick

bcp said:


> If I had a child floating around out there that I didnt know about, I would certainly not slam the door in their face should they suddenly show up.
> 
> _*might be some proof required though*_.




HOW CAN YOU NOT TRUST YOUR OWN CHILD!!!!


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



Toxick said:


> According to him, people magically start acting their age and become good, kind, loving people when they have a child. "It's nature".
> 
> Rational people understand this is a delusion, yet he clings to this delusion with a tenacity the likes of which I have never seen.



Wow, I am so happy that you said that as it touches my heart.

So the message does get though even if it does take time for the seeds to grow.

It really is that simple - just stop viewing the parents as inhuman animals and start seeing the parents as regular human beings and the ignorance will fade away.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> Thank you for proving my diagnosis, Jimmy!



You are welcome, and I too am happy that you got your whatever proved.

Cheers, cheers, cheers... 


.


----------



## hvp05

LusbyMom said:


> Of course it's not his fault.. he didn't choose that. It's your fault and it's your responsibility to make sure she sees him.
> 
> He really has some warped logic


As T_P said, manufacturing this disjointed reality is borne of his own experiences, and the only way he can attempt to excuse what happened in his past.  He denies that his recent "campaigns" have been related to that past, but clearly the ties are deep and direct.

He also denies holding disdain for his ex-wife, yet has insulted her second husband and their marriage.  Additionally, he has indicated that he stood by her grave and told their son he was not upset for what he did - or something to that effect - I'm sure T_P remembers the line better than I.  That is what led to his deducing that divorces should not be granted and second marriages relegated to the level of adultery.

Thus why he can not let go, no matter how many times or how many ways his beliefs are disproven:  not only does he stand to lose his agenda, but he'd have to face reality and accept responsibility.





VoteJP said:


> So the message does get though even if it does take time for the seeds to grow.






VoteJP said:


> You are welcome, and I too am happy that you got your whatever proved.


----------



## frogman123

Why in the hell is this guy running for Governor? His record is ridiculous and every post on here makes him out to be the biggest idiot on the forums (which is really saying something). Who is paying for his little "campaign"? "Manufacturing/Distributing CDS"? What an dumb@$$.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



blondie4512 said:


> Did you miss the part where I said he chooses to alienate himself??? I guess you think I'm supposed to just show up on his doorstep with my daughter who for 1 has never met this man a day in her life and just be like hey here's your daughter, please be a part of her life and he is gonna say ok and its all gonna be merry?!?! I see showing up to some run down trailer, with who in the hell knows what's going on it that place but I can assure you it would be nowhere I would let my child go near.. And him probably slamming the door in her face then I get to be the one to console her on  her heart break... Yea I think I'll pass but I'm glad you live in this delusional world where everyone one is perfect and this stuff doesn't happen... Again helping to justify your own screw ups as a father...



You are just projecting your ideas onto a scenario and being unnecessarily defensive as what you describe is not very likely to really happen at all, link.

Since you have the child's custody then it is your job not to let there be any alienation for the child even if the Dad did want to be alienated (which is never true).

If you approach the Dad in a hostile way then you are bringing the hostility to him, and assuming a "run down trailer" is not fair and even if it is a broken down trailer then he is still her Dad. And we do not know what is going on with him without actually talking to the Dad and finding out what is what, and it is extremely unlikely that a Dad and a Man that once made love to you is going to slam the door in your face. A daughter needs their own real Dad and that is a life-long need that will harm her without it.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



LusbyMom said:


> Sometimes you have to use the law when a man doesn't have enough balls to grow up and be a father.



Moms and custodial parents do not need the law and that law has done you wrong.

The Dad does not need to meet your ideals of grown-up or of being a father and the laws will never serve that function either.

It is your job to deal with the Dad the way he is and not the way you want him to be, and the children need their own real Dad the way he really is and not having their father violated by the law with Mommy standing behind the law that hurts their Dad.

The law makes a custodial to feel strong and to feel righteous but it is a betrayal and those feelings are untrue.


.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Moms and custodial parents do not need the law and that law has done you wrong.
> 
> The Dad does not need to meet your ideals of grown-up or of being a father and the laws will never serve that function either.
> 
> It is your job to deal with the Dad the way he is and not the way you want him to be, and the children need their own real Dad the way he really is and not having their father violated by the law with Mommy standing behind the law that hurts their Dad.
> 
> The law makes a custodial to feel strong and to feel righteous but it is a betrayal and those feelings are untrue.
> 
> 
> .



My job is to raise my child in the best possible way. My job is to protect my child. My ONE AND ONLY concern is my child. 

Is he the way I want him to be? Nope and it is my concern because him acting like a 2 year old HURTS MY CHILD. When you have a child who sits and waits for a deadbeat to show up and then he never shows how exactly do you explain that to a child when they are hurt? I could give a rats ass about his hurt because he is an adult who makes his own decision. My child is just that a child and does not deserve to be treated like garbage.


----------



## Bronwyn

LusbyMom said:


> My job is to raise my child in the best possible way. My job is to protect my child. My ONE AND ONLY concern is my child.
> 
> Is he the way I want him to be? Nope and it is my concern because him acting like a 2 year old HURTS MY CHILD. When you have a child who sits and waits for a deadbeat to show up and then he never shows how exactly do you explain that to a child when they are hurt? I could give a rats ass about his hurt because he is an adult who makes his own decision. My child is just that a child and does not deserve to be treated like garbage.



Don't forget part of your job is to  me too!!!!


----------



## frogman123

VoteJP said:


> Moms and custodial parents do not need the law and that law has done you wrong.
> 
> The Dad does not need to meet your ideals of grown-up or of being a father and the laws will never serve that function either.
> 
> It is your job to deal with the Dad the way he is and not the way you want him to be, and the children need their own real Dad the way he really is and not having their father violated by the law with Mommy standing behind the law that hurts their Dad.
> 
> The law makes a custodial to feel strong and to feel righteous but it is a betrayal and those feelings are untrue.
> 
> 
> .



You are the prime example of someone that should not be a Dad and that shows. Look at you and then look at your son. Like father like son- lives of crime. Some crack head knocks up a woman and that means he is going to (or is eventually going to) be a good dad? NO! Do i think a child needs a father figure? Yes. I know many people who would never refer to their bio father as "dad", but do refer to their step-father as "dad"- because "dad" means a lot more than just knocking someone up- look at yourself if you need an example. 

You are the epitemy of a low-life screw up. And it's sad that you are attempting to get people to vote you into a position that represents them. No body is going to vote for you. Like someone else said in this thread stop posting your craziness and go get a job. well, I guess the problem is that you are not hireable into any decent job- AHHH! That't it! You can't get a decent job, so you are trying to get one that doesnt require hiring, but instead people electing you into it. Just reading your crap pisses me off, but I want to keep reading it so see you make an @$$ out of yourself over and over again...


----------



## Bronwyn

frogman123 said:


> You are the prime example of someone that should not be a Dad and that shows. Look at you and then look at your son. Like father like son- lives of crime. Some crack head knocks up a woman and that means he is going to (or is eventually going to) be a good dad? NO! Do i think a child needs a father figure? Yes. I know many people who would never refer to their bio father as "dad", but do refer to their step-father as "dad"- because "dad" means a lot more than just knocking someone up- look at yourself if you need an example.
> 
> You are the epitemy of a low-life screw up. And it's sad that you are attempting to get people to vote you into a position that represents them. No body is going to vote for you. Like someone else said in this thread stop posting your craziness and go get a job. well, I guess the problem is that you are not hireable into any decent job- AHHH! That't it! You can't get a decent job, so you are trying to get one that doesnt require hiring, but instead people electing you into it. Just reading your crap pisses me off, but I want to keep reading it so see you make an @$$ out of yourself over and over again...



Very well put.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



frogman123 said:


> Some crack head knocks up a woman and that means he is going to (or is eventually going to) be a good dad? NO!



The child's real parents are the reality, and anything otherwise is a lie.

If their parent(s) is a drug user or a rapist or nice person then that is reality, and being healthy includes dealing with reality and not hiding from it or denying it.

A baby born to parents of the KKK grows up to be the child of the KKK because that is what reproducing children is about.

If you want to steal babies from drug using parents then you need to steal the babies from the KKK and from other objectionable parents too.

I say we need to stop taking babies away from their own God given parents - unless there is proven child abuse going on.



frogman123 said:


> Do i think a child needs a father figure? Yes. I know many people who would never refer to their bio father as "dad", but do refer to their step-father as "dad"- because "dad" means a lot more than just knocking someone up- look at yourself if you need an example.



Children are told to call their step-parent as Dad or as Mom, and the children need to be told NOT to do that.

The bio-parents are the real Mom and Dad and anyone else is a fraud and liar - and a liar to children.

You have it figured out in raising children under lies, because you dis-value the truth and the children are then raised under lies and liars. 

The truth will not hurt children, and by the truth is how children face life honestly.



frogman123 said:


> ... it's sad that you are attempting to get people to vote you into a position that represents them. No body is going to vote for you. Like someone else said in this thread stop posting your craziness and go get a job. well,



In 2008 I got 19,067 votes just in the 5th District of MD, and I am applying for the job as the next Governor of Maryland.


.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> The child's real parents are the reality, and anything otherwise is a lie..... next Governor of Maryland.
> 
> 
> .


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The bio-parents are the real Mom and Dad and anyone else is a fraud and liar - and a liar to children.
> 
> You have it figured out in raising children under lies, because you dis-value the truth and the children are then raised under lies and liars.
> 
> The truth will not hurt children, and by the truth is how children face life honestly.
> 
> 
> .



Do you know what a "real" dad is? It's the one who is there for the child all the time. The one who stays up nights when they are puking their guts up, the one that shows up to coach the kids team, the one that shows up to practices and games, the one who supports them, the one the child turns to when they are hurt or sad, the one they look up to. The one that listens to hours of band practice, the one that goes on field trips, the one that teaches them right from wrong. Their is so much more that a "real" dad does. A name on a birth certificate mean nothing if you don't do what a "real" dad does. 

You say the truth will not hurt the child? So is it ok to tell a kid that their parent is a POS loser deadbeat?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



LusbyMom said:


> Do you know what a "real" dad is? It's the one who is there for the child all the time. The one who stays up nights when they are puking their guts up, the one that shows up to coach the kids team, the one that shows up to practices and games, the one who supports them, the one the child turns to when they are hurt or sad, the one they look up to. The one that listens to hours of band practice, the one that goes on field trips, the one that teaches them right from wrong. Their is so much more that a "real" dad does. A name on a birth certificate mean nothing if you don't do what a "real" dad does.



The Dad is NOT to fight the Mom.

So when the Mom is difficult then the Dad always backs off, or else the domestic disputes start.

It is not your place to tell the Dad how to do their job of being a father.



LusbyMom said:


> You say the truth will not hurt the child? So is it ok to tell a kid that their parent is a POS loser deadbeat?



That is your opinion, and it might be your honest belief, but it is not the truth.

The truth means we must keep our own feelings out of it.


.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> The Dad is NOT to fight the Mom.
> 
> So when the Mom is difficult then the Dad always backs off, or else the domestic disputes start.
> 
> It is not your place to tell the Dad how to do their job of being a father.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, and it might be your honest belief, but it is not the truth.
> 
> The truth means we must keep our own feelings out of it.
> 
> 
> .



LOL!  What the he!! are you trying to say cuSICK?  Why can't you just STOP being a loser?  Give up the forums and go get a job.  You may actually be happier.


----------



## bcp

jpc telling people how to be parents would be equal to me telling a brain surgeon how to remove a tumor from the temperal lobe.


----------



## hvp05

bcp said:


> the temperal lobe.


Psst, it's temp*o*ral lobe.


----------



## Bay_Kat

hvp05 said:


> Psst, it's temp*o*ral lobe.



He's just proving that he, like JP(about anything), has no clue(about brain surgery).  No worries.


----------



## hvp05

Bay_Kat said:


> He's just proving that he, like JP(about anything), has no clue(about brain surgery).


Oh, I got it.  That's what made it so funny... to me.


----------



## bcp

Bay_Kat said:


> He's just proving that he, like JP(about anything), has no clue(about brain surgery). No worries.


 Im going with this excuse


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



			
				Ladies said:
			
		

> .........



I say it would be wise to recognize who here is offering advice to make people's lives better, while others are just jokers and pricks that do not care about the families being hurt.

No one else cares about the child's Dad being away or about the child being raised separated from their Dad but I do.

The State laws cares nothing about the families being ruined either, as the Child Support is just petty cash to shut-up and pacify the custodial.

It is a pay-off for a broken family.

The law trashes the separated parents and alienates their children and that is not because the custodial is the "good" parent or the "responsible" parent - no, it is the State's punishment for having the children.


.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> The law trashes the separated parents and alienates their children and that is not because the custodial is the "good" parent or the "responsible" parent - no, it is the State's punishment for having the children.
> 
> 
> .


The law does nothing of the sort unless the parent runs off and refuses to support his/her children.
 You take this view because you are by your own admittance, that POS prick that abandoned your child by your own choice.

 that is why nobody cares what you have to say. You are an idiot.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



bcp said:


> The law does nothing of the sort unless the parent runs off and refuses to support his/her children.



That really is the same logic that all thieves mis-use when they steal.

Like a thief has a gun pointed and says; "Give your money of your life" and so it is not the thief's fault for shooting the person that does not pay the thief, per the thievery mentality.

The thieving Child Support is the same stealing mentality in that if parents just pay the thieves then they do not get robbed - ha, ha, ha ha ha.... 

You are a thief and that is why you think like a thief.

When I become Governor then I will put an end to the thievery.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> the Child Support is just petty cash to shut-up and pacify the custodial.
> 
> It is a pay-off for a broken family.


I thought the state kept the money and the custodials never saw it...   





VoteJP said:


> "Give your money of your life"
> 
> The thieving Child Support is the same stealing mentality in that if parents just pay the thieves then they do not get robbed


This could be a very valid point!  And we will believe you as soon as you prove the above to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.  Link to some caseS (i.e., more than one) that illustrate where people have died as a *direct* result of paying or not paying their CS.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> I thought the state kept the money and the custodials never saw it...



Fortunately I like saying things over and over again, but you of all people must know better.

The State takes the Child Support loot ONLY *ONLY* only from the poorest of the poor families on welfare, but the richer custodial parents are given their Child Support even though they do not need it.

Richer parents get more Child Support while the poorest parents get their Child Support taken away and added to the State treasury.

A part of the reason for that is because the richer parents can hire a Lawyer and can make troubles for the State which the poorest of custodial parents can not do.

So the Child Support dumps on the poorest custodial parents as it also abuses the poorest of the separated parents because the Child Support is a corrupt and cowardly system to its core.



hvp05 said:


> This could be a very valid point!  And we will believe you as soon as you prove the above to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.  Link to some caseS (i.e., more than one) that illustrate where people have died as a *direct* result of paying or not paying their CS.



There are reports of parents killing their children and killing their spouse and killing them selves and killing their ex - all because of the Child Support, but the killing was NOT the point as the point was of stealing.

Most thieves that hold a gun to a person saying; "Give your money or your life" will almost always get the cash, and I do not know of even one person that ever refused to find out if they would really be killed or not.

Stealing associated with physical threats is usually a very effective way of stealing money. 

So all separated parents know the State's given threats that they must pay the thieving Child Support or else be robbed or be put into jail, and most parents just pay the thieves, and the ones in jail had no choice since they are dead-broke then they could not pay the thieves even if they wanted to.


.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Fortunately I like saying things over and over again, but you of all people must know better.
> 
> The State takes the Child Support loot ONLY *ONLY* only from the poorest of the poor families on welfare, but the richer custodial parents are given their Child Support even though they do not need it.
> 
> Richer parents get more Child Support while the poorest parents get their Child Support taken away and added to the State treasury.
> 
> A part of the reason for that is because the richer parents can hire a Lawyer and can make troubles for the State which the poorest of custodial parents can not do.
> 
> So the Child Support dumps on the poorest custodial parents as it also abuses the poorest of the separated parents because the Child Support is a corrupt and cowardly system to its core.


you as always are wrong.
 see, when some worthless POS runs off and refuses to support his child, the state steps in and gives assistance to the family left poor by the sorry SOB.
 When they catch up, they take the money that the sorry SOB paid, and apply it toward the money that the state paid out in the first place. 
 Lets call it a loan from the state.

 now, the state does not take the money from the "rich" (prononced responsible) parents because those parents are 
1) paying the support
2) dont qualify for assistance even in the case of non payment.

 in example 2, the state did not make any "loan" so the non paying parent does not owe the state.

 in these examples, the state is the taxpayers, and as a taxpayer, I personally do NOT want to pay for your ignorance.

 you are an idiot, a wasted old man bitter from the results of the choices you made in your worthless life.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



bcp said:


> Lets call it a loan from the state.



Welfare as a "loan" from the State.

That just leaves me speechless.



.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Welfare as a "loan" from the State.
> 
> That just leaves me speechless.
> 
> 
> 
> .


 what should leave you speechless is the fact that you seem to think that I and others hold some responsibilty to pay for the mistakes of your wife when she let you breed.

 she did let you right?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Welfare as a "loan" from the State.
> 
> That just leaves me speechless.


The money recouped by Child Support is not "welfare", it is temporary cash assistance.

"Welfare" is not recouped, as has been shown and explained to you repeatedly.

Those who actually get the child support from the non-custodial should have no need for the temporary cash assistance.  This is how a deadbeat non-custodial is actually stealing from taxpayers - by creating a situation in which the child needs taxpayer support instead of parents providing support.

That makes YOU the thief, Jimmy.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*

Welcome back old buddy.  



This_person said:


> The money recouped by Child Support is not "welfare", it is temporary cash assistance.



The term "Welfare" is a generic word that comes from the preamble of the US Constitution, link HERE, "promote the general Welfare" and the "Temporary Cash Assistance" (TCA) is a part of the Welfare provisions even if it is not the entirety of all Welfare available.



This_person said:


> "Welfare" is not recouped, as has been shown and explained to you repeatedly.



Since the State gov does takes the Child Support based on paying the TCA and the TCA is a part of the Welfare programs then you call it TCA and I call it Welfare and it is still the same that the State steals the Child Support from the poorest of the poor custodial families.

Tamoto or Tomato or whatever name - it is still Child Support that does not support children.



This_person said:


> Those who actually get the child support from the non-custodial should have no need for the temporary cash assistance.



If that were the real case then the State would NOT be taking the Child Support from the poorest of families, but the State DOES take the Child Support loot so your case is imaginary nonsense just trying to make some fictitious claim of your own that is not real.

When the Child Support does get paid then the State does take the c/s payments and the State does keep the loot.



This_person said:


> This is how a deadbeat non-custodial is actually stealing from taxpayers - by creating a situation in which the child needs taxpayer support instead of parents providing support.



Again, that *CAN NOT* be true, because the noncustodial parents do pay in many cases and the State does keep the Child Support and does NOT give it to the custodial and not to the children.

Your kind slanders the parents in that way, but the fact remains that if the separated parents pay the Child Support or does not pay it then the children and the custodial never gets the payments anyway because the State keeps the c/s as loot.



This_person said:


> That makes YOU the thief, Jimmy.



This is another point were your kind slanders based on absolutely nothing.

If I am a thief then please do report me to the authorities to prosecute - but no, because nothing has been stolen by me and I am not in any possession of anything stolen, so some thing has to be taken in order to be a thief.

Like you getting the State to steal from your children's Mom and you living off of that stolen money means some thing has been taken by force, and some one (your self) has received money stolen from the Mother of your children.

In this case some thing has been stolen and some one has stolen property in their possession.

Your own pretentious claim has no reality in it as your words are not true.


.


----------



## smdavis65

JPC, 
I'm tired of your tripe. You have no right to preach about parenting, because you failed as a parent.

Yes, I am divorced and pay child support. I have no qualms about supporting my kids. I see them regularly, and we get along great.

Your vendetta offends me. Please DIAF.

Thanks!


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The term "Welfare" is a generic word that comes from the preamble of the US Constitution


     Around and around you go, same old lies over and over.

Your definition does not even make sense within the four word snip you have used so many times, nonetheless within the overall document you clearly know nothing about.



> you call it TCA and I call it Welfare


Okay, simple question:  if the state already has a welfare program, why would they initiate a TCA program to perform the exact same functions?  Does it not make even the slightest bit of sense that the TCA program is something different and operates under different rules than regular welfare?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> Around and around you go, same old lies over and over.



So you are playing the police-of-lies this time, and I do not ever lie.

I gave a direct link with a direct quote and more, so you are not a competent police of lies.  



hvp05 said:


> Your definition does not even make sense within the four word snip you have used so many times, nonetheless within the overall document you clearly know nothing about.



Boo hoo hoo ...... 



hvp05 said:


> Okay, simple question:  if the state already has a welfare program, why would they initiate a TCA program to perform the exact same functions?  Does it not make even the slightest bit of sense that the TCA program is something different and operates under different rules than regular welfare?



What I said, and happy to repeat it again, is that the TCA is a part of Welfare and not the whole program

New quote;

Really, any program in which the government provides money or services to citizens who are in need is a welfare program.

In the United States, welfare may also be used in a more specialized context, to refer specifically to what was historically known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and is now known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Since 1997 this welfare system has been handled by the states, who use money given to them by the Federal government as they see fit.

Link it HERE = What is Welfare?

Unless you see the "Geek" as a liar too?


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> the police-of-lies


I am sorry your sociopathic tendencies drive you to so strongly resent ever being told you are wrong.   



> I gave a direct link with a direct quote and more


T_P provided a thorough explanation the last time you claimed this lie and you ignored his evidence, so what would be the point of going through it again?



> Boo hoo hoo ......


I am also sorry that you so readily resort to acting like a 3 year old when you can not formulate a mature response.



> the TCA is a part of Welfare and not the whole program


You are confusing "being a part of" with "being related to".  They are vastly different.  But I do not expect you to understand when you generalize everything.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The term "Welfare" is a generic word that comes from the preamble of the US Constitution, "promote the general Welfare" and the "Temporary Cash Assistance" (TCA) is a part of the Welfare provisions even if it is not the entirety of all Welfare available.


You have been shown, repeatedly, that:
The Preamble is not a legally binding part of the Constitution - the part you mean to reference is Article One, Section 8
The "general welfare" that this refers to is of the United States - "general" meaning "overall, for the bulk of the people and the country", and "welfare" meaning "well-being, state of being"
Please reference any of the dozens of times this has been explained to you, with all of the references and links and dictionary excerpts.  I don't have the time to do it for you AGAIN





> Since the State gov does takes the Child Support based on paying the TCA and the TCA is a part of the Welfare programs then you call it TCA and I call it Welfare and it is still the same that the State steals the Child Support from the poorest of the poor custodial families.


No, it provides it pre-emptively.  It provided the money the non-custodial should have provided, then recoups its investment of taxpayer cash when the non-custodial pays that money back.

See, they can't take the TCA unless they've provided money.  The odds of someone qualifying for getting TCA are slim to none if the child were being supported by both parents.





> Tamoto or Tomato or whatever name - it is still Child Support that does not support children.


Yes, it is just paid by the state first, instead of by the parent first.





> If that were the real case then the State would NOT be taking the Child Support from the poorest of families, but the State DOES take the Child Support loot so your case is imaginary nonsense just trying to make some fictitious claim of your own that is not real.


It only takes from those who have taken from a particular type of taxpayer funded program.  It only takes the amount the taxpayers provided.  Nothing imaginary about that, nor fictitious.





> When the Child Support does get paid then the State does take the c/s payments and the State does keep the loot.


Only if it has already provided the child support payment to the child (via the child's custodian) first, and only the amount it previously provided, and only under the most extreme of situations.  Once the taxpayer is repaid his/her kindness of helping out the custodial parent in time of need, then all subsequent child support payments make it to the child.





> Again, that *CAN NOT* be true, because the noncustodial parents do pay in many cases and the State does keep the Child Support and does NOT give it to the custodial and not to the children.


Only to pay back the taxpayer what the taxpayer provided.  Then, all money provided to  the child by the non-custodial after that repayment of funds provided previously go to the child.





> Your kind slanders the parents in that way, but the fact remains that if the separated parents pay the Child Support or does not pay it then the children and the custodial never gets the payments anyway because the State keeps the c/s as loot.


It is extremely unlikely that a parent who is supporting their child, and the child also being supported by the non-custodial parent, would be eligible for the TCA.

Even if they were, the only amount repaid to the taxpayer is the amount the taxpayer paid.  All other money goes to the child.





> This is another point were your kind slanders based on absolutely nothing.


Much like Nuck, you fail to recognize that "fact" is not nothing.





> If I am a thief then please do report me to the authorities to prosecute - but no, because nothing has been stolen by me and I am not in any possession of anything stolen, so some thing has to be taken in order to be a thief.


If the custodial parent is a thief, then please do report them to the authorities to prosecute - but no, because nothing has been stolen by them and they are not in possession of anything stolen.

Your argument is valid equally both ways - if child support from a biological parent is stealing, then so is taxpayer money funding that child via TCA.





> Like you getting the State to steal from your children's Mom and you living off of that stolen money means some thing has been taken by force, and some one (your self) has received money stolen from the Mother of your children.


Like TCA is taken from taxpayers by force, and someone (the TCA recipient) has received money stolen from teh taxpayer.





> In this case some thing has been stolen and some one has stolen property in their possession.


Yep, in both cases it's equally true.





> Your own pretentious claim has no reality in it as your words are not true.


If you are correct, that makes two of us.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> If I am a thief then please do report me to the authorities to prosecute - but no, because nothing has been stolen by me and I am not in any possession of anything stolen, so some thing has to be taken in order to be a thief.


 Actually, didnt you spend some time in jail for your non-payment? or in other words, for stealing from the public to take care of your responsibility?

 it may be closed now, but you are still a thief.

 not to mention taking money for a disability that does not keep you from working. If it did, you certainly could never entertain the idea of a public office.


----------



## hvp05

This_person said:


> Only if it has already provided the child support payment to the child (via the child's custodian) first, and *only the amount it previously provided*, and only under the most extreme of situations.  Once the taxpayer is repaid his/her kindness of helping out the custodial parent in time of need, then all subsequent child support payments make it to the child.


  That's an important point.

Which reminds me of something Jimmy conveniently overlooked a while back...





			
				Maryland on TCA said:
			
		

> If you receive Temporary Cash Assistance, any child support payments collected will be kept by the State as reimbursement.  *If you no longer receive Temporary Cash Assistance, your current support, as well as any payments made on arrears due you, will be mailed to you.*


Jimmy do you care to address the bolded line this time around?  If the state does not give the custodials their due money, how can that line be true?



			
				This_person said:
			
		

> If the custodial parent is a thief, then please do report them to the authorities to prosecute - but no, because nothing has been stolen by them and they are not in possession of anything stolen.


   Good one.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> Jimmy do you care to address the bolded line this time around?  If the state does not give the custodials their due money, how can that line be true?
> 
> Good one.



It is just fascinating to me when I repeat the exact same thing over and over to you as here I must do again.

I NEVER never said that the custodials do not receive the stolen Child Support as it is only ONLY only the poorest of the poor custodial parents that do not.

Not all custodial but just the poorest ones, because only the poorest can qualify for the TCA and then the State keeps the Child Support as loot.

And the bold words you quoted = "*If you no longer receive Temporary Cash Assistance,*" and those do not receive the TCA = DO NOT GET TCA, so those are not included as the poorest of the poor.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> I am sorry your sociopathic tendencies drive you to so strongly resent ever being told you are wrong.



It is not sociopath or otherwise as you said it was a lie and as me lying and that was my objection.

Telling me I am *wrong* is fine and I deal fine with that, but calling a mistake as a lie is attacking my character and that was my objection.



hvp05 said:


> T_P provided a thorough explanation the last time you claimed this lie and you ignored his evidence, so what would be the point of going through it again?



If you see it as a mistake or me being wrong then I will deal with it, but if you insist on referring to me as lie and lying then there is no discussion.



hvp05 said:


> You are confusing "being a part of" with "being related to".  They are vastly different.  But I do not expect you to understand when you generalize everything.



That was the point that I am generalizing it because Welfare and TCA and there relationships have nothing to do with my point of reforming the thieving Child Support system.

And I do not claim to understand everything, and some things are confusing.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> If the custodial parent is a thief, then please do report them to the authorities to prosecute - but no, because nothing has been stolen by them and they are not in possession of anything stolen.



It is the State that steals and the Custodial only receives the stolen money.

(Excluding the TCA debate)

I do not call the custodial parents as a "thief" even if some few might be such.

The State is the thief, but since the State is also the law then it is legalized stealing.

And to be more accurate, the Custody laws effectively steal the children from one parent, and the Child Support is like paying ransom cash to the kidnappers, and in both cases it is the Custodial receiving the stolen children and then receiving the stolen or exploited loot called as Child Support.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



bcp said:


> Actually, didnt you spend some time in jail for your non-payment? or in other words, for stealing from the public to take care of your responsibility?



So I stole from the County jail as a thief because I stole 3 hots and a cot from the Sheriff ....   

And I am not going to give it back either.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



smdavis65 said:


> JPC,
> I'm tired of your tripe. You have no right to preach about parenting, because you failed as a parent.
> 
> Yes, I am divorced and pay child support. I have no qualms about supporting my kids. I see them regularly, and we get along great.
> 
> Your vendetta offends me.
> 
> Thanks!



So that means your children have been stolen and you pay a ransom to the kidnappers.

And if you ever stop paying the thieves then they will make certain that you never see your children again.

Separated parents can not argue or defend against the thievery, and in most or many cases it is better to pay then to completely lose thy children.

It is an injustice and you pay under such indecent threats against your family.

When I am Governor then this will end.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Not all custodial but just the poorest ones, because only the poorest can qualify for the TCA and then the State keeps the Child Support as loot.


So, if they were receiving the child support, would it be likely they'd qualify for TCA?  No, it would not.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> So that means your children have been stolen and you pay a ransom to the kidnappers.


If they are kidnappers, and the children have been stolen, please report them to the proper authorities, as you previously and repeatedly have suggested.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I NEVER never said that the custodials do not receive the stolen Child Support as it is only ONLY only the poorest of the poor custodial parents that do not.


You did just say it... in the second half of that sentence.   

I wonder, why would the state keep only the payments from the poorest parents?  By definition, those [payments] would be the lowest on the overall scale of CS going through the system.  If the state were only in it for the 'loot', would it not be better to withhold the payments from/to the more well-off parents?  Or maybe all of the parents?  You seem to be asserting that the state has something against poor people.  Is that a correct assessment, and can you explain such a conclusion, if it is correct?




VoteJP said:


> calling a mistake as a lie is attacking my character and that was my objection.


So you made a mistake.  As long as you agree you were in err.



> And I do not claim to understand everything, and some things are confusing.


Ah.  Glad you can admit that too.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> I wonder, why would the state keep only the payments from the poorest parents?  By definition, those [payments] would be the lowest on the overall scale of CS going through the system.  If the state were only in it for the 'loot', would it not be better to withhold the payments from/to the more well-off parents?  Or maybe all of the parents?  You seem to be asserting that the state has something against poor people.  Is that a correct assessment, and can you explain such a conclusion, if it is correct?



I am not saying the State takes the Child Support to enrich the State treasury - no, it takes the Child Support because the State has determined that the Welfare system (when TCA is applied) has already provided everything the Custodial and the children need to full and even to overflowing, and therefore the State keeps the Child Support loot because the custodial and the children do not need the extra cash.

This is a powerful point because it sets the limit of real needs for a Custodial and children and thereafter taking money from other parents and giving it to other Custodial parents and calling it as "supporting the children" is thereby shown to be a fraud.

The separated parents (not regarding the TCA cases) already know that their Child Support payments do not go to their children and it is just extra cash for luxuries and for Custodial extras and not for the care of their children, just as the State knows the same thing with the State welfare or TCA money. That is why many separated parents do not pay the Child Support or resist paying to the thievery.

That is the point that the children already have everything they need to overflowing and claiming to help or support children through the Child Support laws is a complete and utter fraud.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> So, if they were receiving the child support, would it be likely they'd qualify for TCA?  No, it would not.



In some cases that is correct if the Child Support payments are large enough, and that is their claimed reason for doing it (stealing the Child Support from the poorest of families), and that method does work in serving the State's purposes.

I surely do not deny that there are seen as some benefits to stealing the Child Support, because stealing the loot does give the State more money and when given to the Custodial then the Custodials have more loot too, and it might save some money from the TCA program too, so I am not denying the monetary and financial benefits of stealing - certainly not. 

For people that believe in stealing as acceptable then it surely must seem profitable because they are aggressively stealing as much as they can.

My point is that it unjustly and severely damages the paying parent, and it is a degradation of the Custodial parent to live off of thievery, and it eventually alienates the children from both parents, and it undermines our social structures by destroying the family as a unit, and in reality the stolen loot gives nothing of need to the children as it is all a fraud under the concept of thievery.

Other people see stealing as profitable too, like one robs a Bank (or store) and then they can go on vacations to the Bahamas or to Vegas on the stolen Bank money since it is free stolen loot. Buy new clothes, eat fine foods, so stolen money does seem like free money when it really is not because we lose other values in the process.



This_person said:


> If they are kidnappers, and the children have been stolen, please report them to the proper authorities, as you previously and repeatedly have suggested.



I truly have reported the crimes to the proper authorities and I found out the authorities are immoral and misguided and the authorities are the criminals.

I really have spoken to some face-to-face, and sent letters and emails to others in authority, spoke it in Court to Judges, eventually I spray painted the message onto the Maryland State House, and now I am intending to deliver the message myself when I take on the Office of Maryland's Governor.

I really am doing as I preach.


.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> If I am a thief then please do report me to the authorities to prosecute - but no, because nothing has been stolen by me and I am not in any possession of anything stolen, so some thing has to be taken in order to be a thief.



Your ex-wife did report you, and you did go to jail. You stole your son's childhood. That means you are a thief.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> This is a powerful point because it sets the limit of real needs for a Custodial and children and thereafter taking money from other parents and giving it to other Custodial parents and calling it as "supporting the children" is thereby shown to be a fraud.


Ooohhh!  I thought I knew everything there was to know about your warped view, but I did not know this.

So, in a way, you actually agree with the state not passing the money on to the custodials.  Shouldn't you be congratulating the state then?

That said, I am still not sure why you think having the *bare* essentials of life equates to having "everything to overflowing".  How many prosperous, happy welfare recipients have you met?  Would they be willing to support your view that they have "everything to overflowing" and neither need nor want anything more?  What, exactly, is wrong with having some luxuries in life?  Does that, perchance, stem from your religion or do you simply not like seeing people prosper?  (Could explain why you're a Liberal...)


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> Ooohhh!  I thought I knew everything there was to know about your warped view, but I did not know this.



Wow, I am happy that you see my point (whether you agree with it or not) and I honestly do appreciate you telling that to me.



hvp05 said:


> So, in a way, you actually agree with the state not passing the money on to the custodials.  Shouldn't you be congratulating the state then?



I do agree with the State not giving the Child Support but it still demonstrates the hypocrisy of putting parents into jail for not making their c/s payments when those richer Custodials have the exact same circumstance that the Custodial and the children have all their needs filled to overflowing.

And since the State affirms the poorest of the poor have all their needs then that means the richer (even slightly or little richer) Custodials truly must be overflowing by the State's standard imposed on the poorest of the poor families.

My findings and therefore my objection to this is that the State has no business keeping the loot and the State would be right to give the money back to the paying separated parents. 

Consider that if the separated parents' Child Support is so small that it can not take the family off of welfare then the parents are too dirt poor to pay anything. And it is customary that rich Men have babies with rich Women, and poor Men usually have babies with poor Women, so the Mom and child being on welfare usually means the separated Dad is dirt poor too and for the State to demand payments that are too small to relieve the family from the welfare then it is too small to be collected.

Only poor and dead-broke parents go to jail, because if they have any assets then the State takes the loot as payment, so a parent only goes to jail when there is nothing for the State to steal.

Many working class parents have Child Support order of $500 or less per month which is not enough to support an unemployed Custodial and child, but if that $500 is based on the Guidelines of 25% then the paying parent makes 75% more than that amount, so paying $100 per week (most months are 4 weeks plus 2 or 3 days each) and that means making $400 (after taxes) to pay $100 (25% of net) which impoverishes or cripples the paying parent per our societal standards, and it gives the Custodial an inadequate amount to meet their real needs.

Custodial parents complain about not getting enough Child Support, while the paying parents are often severely compromised by the Court orders, and thereafter the State laws are a complete and utter fraud that helps no one and harms everyone.  



hvp05 said:


> That said, I am still not sure why you think having the *bare* essentials of life equates to having "everything to overflowing".  How many prosperous, happy welfare recipients have you met?
> Would they be willing to support your view that they have "everything to overflowing" and neither need nor want anything more?  What, exactly, is wrong with having some luxuries in life?  Does that, perchance, stem from your religion or do you simply not like seeing people prosper?  (Could explain why you're a Liberal...)



It is really the State that sets that standard, and I am mocking it in my words of "overflowing" because the needs are filled and all that is being demanded is more and more money when there is no "need" being unfilled.

The State does not give the extra cash to the poorest of the poor because the welfare Moms are expected to use it for their lovers or for narcotics or booze or whatever.

The rat-race is not about need but a race for greed and lust and pleasures, and that is why the separated parents are viewed as getting away with some thing but no one knows what they get away with because losing their family means they already lost everything of real value in the exchange. 


.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> Wow, I am happy that you see my point (whether you agree with it or not) and I honestly do appreciate you telling that to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree with the State not giving the Child Support but it still demonstrates the hypocrisy of putting parents into jail for not making their c/s payments when those richer Custodials have the exact same circumstance that the Custodial and the children have all their needs filled to overflowing.
> 
> And since the State affirms the poorest of the poor have all their needs then that means the richer (even slightly or little richer) Custodials truly must be overflowing by the State's standard imposed on the poorest of the poor families.
> 
> My findings and therefore my objection to this is that the State has no business keeping the loot and the State would be right to give the money back to the paying separated parents.
> 
> Consider that if the separated parents' Child Support is so small that it can not take the family off of welfare then the parents are too dirt poor to pay anything. And it is customary that rich Men have babies with rich Women, and poor Men usually have babies with poor Women, so the Mom and child being on welfare usually means the separated Dad is dirt poor too and for the State to demand payments that are too small to relieve the family from the welfare then it is too small to be collected.
> 
> Only poor and dead-broke parents go to jail, because if they have any assets then the State takes the loot as payment, so a parent only goes to jail when there is nothing for the State to steal.
> 
> Many working class parents have Child Support order of $500 or less per month which is not enough to support an unemployed Custodial and child, but if that $500 is based on the Guidelines of 25% then the paying parent makes 75% more than that amount, so paying $100 per week (most months are 4 weeks plus 2 or 3 days each) and that means making $400 (after taxes) to pay $100 (25% of net) which impoverishes or cripples the paying parent per our societal standards, and it gives the Custodial an inadequate amount to meet their real needs.
> 
> Custodial parents complain about not getting enough Child Support, while the paying parents are often severely compromised by the Court orders, and thereafter the State laws are a complete and utter fraud that helps no one and harms everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> It is really the State that sets that standard, and I am mocking it in my words of "overflowing" because the needs are filled and all that is being demanded is more and more money when there is no "need" being unfilled.
> 
> The State does not give the extra cash to the poorest of the poor because the welfare Moms are expected to use it for their lovers or for narcotics or booze or whatever.
> 
> The rat-race is not about need but a race for greed and lust and pleasures, and that is why the separated parents are viewed as getting away with some thing but no one knows what they get away with because losing their family means they already lost everything of real value in the exchange.
> 
> 
> .



You're such a waste of human flesh.  You are nothing more than an oxygen thief.  I realize you are a sick little man and have some mental issues but there has got to be a point when someone takes the time to get you some help.  Please go get some help.  You really do need it.


----------



## Bay_Kat

I think JP is doing community service and part of that community service is to see how many people he can convince that he is running for Governor.   So far, I think the answer is a big goose egg.


----------



## Highlander

Bay_Kat said:


> I think JP is doing community service and part of that community service is to see how many people he can convince that he is running for Governor.   So far, I think the answer is a big goose egg.



Oh,  I think he is actually running.  He will also get some votes.  You know, the people who hate O'Malley and want to vote against him but don't do any homework to see what cuSICK is all about.  So, cuSICK will get votes and he will wallow in the numbers for a few years and think of all these people as his imaginary friends.  Afterall, he doesn't  have any real ones.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> For people that believe in stealing as acceptable then it surely must seem profitable because they are aggressively stealing as much as they can.


You mean, like taking tax money to pay for welfare and disability and medicare/medicaid, social security, etc., etc., etc.?





> My point is that it unjustly and severely damages the paying parent, and it is a degradation of the Custodial parent to live off of thievery, and it eventually alienates the children from both parents, and it undermines our social structures by destroying the family as a unit, and in reality the stolen loot gives nothing of need to the children as it is all a fraud under the concept of thievery.


How?  If the parents were together, they would share that money and provide for the child.  When the parents choose to not be together, how does continuing to share money to provide for the child hurt anyone?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> You mean, like taking tax money to pay for welfare and disability and medicare/medicaid, social security, etc., etc., etc.?



Those things apply to the entire population, and gov has a duty to provide those services, and those are not like stealing of Child Support.

The Child Support laws attack individual parents in oppressive ways and it is a totally difference situation then anything you listed.



This_person said:


> How?  If the parents were together, they would share that money and provide for the child.  When the parents choose to not be together, how does continuing to share money to provide for the child hurt anyone?



That is great for anyone that wants to voluntarily share their resources for their own children and I highly agree with doing that.

But the gov laws interfering and stealing the parents' livelihood and alienating the children needs to be stopped.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Those things apply to the entire population, and gov has a duty to provide those services, and those are not like stealing of Child Support.


Knowing that the Preamble is not legally binding, and that the "general welfare" clause is for the United States, not indivuduals, and that the "general" portion means "most everybody", and that the "welfare" means "general well-being" (not handout money/entitlements), what does disability have to do with the general population?  How is money available only to those below a certain net worth available to the entire population.





> The Child Support laws attack individual parents in oppressive ways and it is a totally difference situation then anything you listed.


How is it any more "attacking" than taxes?





> That is great for anyone that wants to voluntarily share their resources for their own children and I highly agree with doing that.
> 
> But the gov laws interfering and stealing the parents' livelihood and alienating the children needs to be stopped.


How is this any different than taxes?  Taxes are not equal for all people, but based on people's individual situations - in the case of child support, the situation is that the parent is responsible for providing to their child.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That is great for anyone that wants to voluntarily share their resources for their own children and I highly agree with doing that.


But... think of all those unnecessary luxuries and extras!  How can you support such a thing?


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> That is great for anyone that wants to voluntarily share their resources for their own children and I highly agree with doing that.
> 
> But the gov laws interfering and stealing the parents' livelihood and alienating the children needs to be stopped.
> 
> .


 do you highly agree with supporting your own children now after some revelation, or do you just highly agree with supporting your own children as long as its someone else's children being supported by someone else.

 obviously, you did not support such radical ideas while your own child went without growing up.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> *Knowing that the Preamble is not legally binding, and that the "general welfare" clause is for the United States, not indivuduals, and that the "general" portion means "most everybody", and that the "welfare" means "general well-being" (not handout money/entitlements), what does disability have to do with the general population?  How is money available only to those below a certain net worth available to the entire population.How is it any more "attacking" than taxes?How is this any different than taxes?  Taxes are not equal for all people, but based on people's individual situations - in the case of child support, the situation is that the parent is responsible for providing to their child.*



The fact is that you can hide behind some claims about taxes to hide the Child Support thievery, but I do not care about equating the thieving Child Support to taxes as that is your cop-out and it means nothing to me.

If you want to live off of money stolen from your children's Mom and then call it as like taxes or as a loan or whatever deception you chose then that is no concern of mine.

Deal with it or do not deal with it but I am intending reform the thieving Child Support and not to ease your conscience.


.


----------



## CentralMD

From The Sun forum, JP is now regarding his public as, “… you white folks”.


_“It has been great fun for me to have been arguing the Civil War with you white folks on those other threads, and it was a new experience for me to take on such an issue is such aggressive ways.”

“They even deleted one of my comments to the "White Countess" and I am not use to being censored.”“I suspect that you white folks have been talking all kinds of racist and Civil War trash on this Forum for a long time without some one to challenge the junk, so I still probably have a hard fight ahead of me.”

“I hope you saw that I picked on your post in-particular just because I was trying to draw you out for the slaughter.”_

JP for Governor of MD. - Page 50 - Baltimore Sun talk forum


I can’t wait to see the new photo once the race change takes place.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The fact is that you can hide behind some claims about taxes to hide the Child Support thievery, but I do not care about equating the thieving Child Support to taxes as that is your cop-out and it means nothing to me.
> 
> If you want to live off of money stolen from your children's Mom and then call it as like taxes or as a loan or whatever deception you chose then that is no concern of mine.
> 
> Deal with it or do not deal with it but I am intending reform the thieving Child Support and not to ease your conscience.


My conscience is unburdened, and I do not equate it to taxes, persojnally.  I equate it to what it would be like for both parents if both parents are together, providing for their children.  You see, unlike you, I understand that parents are responsible, equally, for the rearing of their children.  I do not believe one parent should desert, to let the other parent and their offspring figure out how to get by alone.

Like you, my children are grown and my issue associated with child support is long since done and over with.  My point in even lowering myself to discuss these things with you is for the one or two people reading you that don't know your idiotic ways, and may possibly be influenced by your irresponsible positions.

Equating it to taxes was done simply for your adled brain.  You see money given by the NCP as if it were taken by force, because the government sets the amount.  That is like taxes.  You see it being given to someone else who, in your opinion, might possibly misuse it - like welfare, or food stamps, or WIC, or (closer to home to you) disability payments.  From the lifestyle you appear to lead, you're living on the version of child support that effects all taxpayers.  You feel you need taxpayer money to get by, when really your needs are very small, and you should get by with nothing.  You have family, you have the ability to have your needs met and overflowing without taking any money from taxpayers - in just exactly the same way your child had everything he needed without money from you.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The fact is that you can hide behind some claims about taxes to hide the Child Support thievery, but I do not care about equating the thieving Child Support to taxes as that is your cop-out and it means nothing to me.
> 
> If you want to live off of money stolen from your children's Mom and then call it as like taxes or as a loan or whatever deception you chose then that is no concern of mine.
> 
> Deal with it or do not deal with it but I am intending reform the thieving Child Support and not to ease your conscience.
> 
> 
> .



I have to ask - why did you feel the need to shrink and make near invisible my words in this response, but you don't normally do that.  Is it because you just can't fight truth and logic any more?


----------



## hvp05

This_person said:


> You feel you need taxpayer money to get by, when really your needs are very small, and you should get by with nothing.  You have family, you have the ability to have your needs met and overflowing without taking any money from taxpayers


That sets up a good question:  why didn't you, Jimmy, seek help from churches, community organizations and family before asking the government to support you?  Those are the resources you suggest poor parents go through for help, yet they do not seem good enough for you.  Why not?


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



hvp05 said:


> That sets up a good question:  why didn't you, Jimmy, seek help from churches, community organizations and family before asking the government to support you?  Those are the resources you suggest poor parents go through for help, yet they do not seem good enough for you.  Why not?



I did do that myself.

When I was last released from prison (2003) onto the streets of Leonardtown as homeless, destitute and physically injured, then it was my own Mom that took and paid for Dr. Moon who first filled out the documentation that I was disabled and unable to work. But I was still homeless after that as I then got foodstamps and put on a waiting list for housing, then I went to the Church food pantry and soup kitchen in Leonardtown and a Lady from the Catholic Church that volunteered there helped me to get into housing provided by the local Churches until I was able to get my own apartment through the section 8 program.

And for reference or to give credit - Dr. Moon performed two (2) operations on me (1995 & in 96) for my abdominal strain and Dr. Moon paid for it himself with some assistance from the Health Share program, and I could hardly walk and homeless before the operations so Dr. Moon is one of my big heros here, and so is that great Christian Catholic Lady from Leonardtown, because I was in deep and in big troubles at those times.

The Child Support attacks against me and my subsequent retaliations lasted from around 1994 through mid 2003 when relesed from MD prison.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> You see money given by the NCP as if it were taken by force, because the government sets the amount.  That is like taxes.



Actually, if the Child Support was done as like taxes are done then I would likely give up my own fight against the thieveing system.

That would not make it right but it would be a hundred mile improvement.

The law even says to take Child Support by percentage like taxes but the Courts refuse to comply and there is stands.

If it was collected and paid from a Parents paycheck like percentages as the taxes are then the Child Support payment would go up when the parent makes more and go down when the parent makes less.

That we could live with.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Actually, if the Child Support was done as like taxes are done then I would likely give up my own fight against the thieveing system.
> 
> That would not make it right but it would be a hundred mile improvement.
> 
> The law even says to take Child Support by percentage like taxes but the Courts refuse to comply and there is stands.
> 
> If it was collected and paid from a Parents paycheck like percentages as the taxes are then the Child Support payment would go up when the parent makes more and go down when the parent makes less.
> 
> That we could live with.


As a general rule, that is not done primarily because of people like you; people who manipulate the system by, say, getting paid under the table or reducing their income, not working, etc., to avoid paying a fair portion towards their child's welfare.

Cheats, deadbeats, etc., broke what could have been a perfectly fine system if people were just honest and supported their children.  They (those like you) are the ones that didn't pay, causing need for a law, and then suberted the system, causing need to amend the implementation of the law.

See, when people desert their children to let them figure it out for themselves, it causes those children hardship.  Laws were created and modified to protect those children - your son, Jimmy - from those irresponsible people - you, Jimmy.


----------



## Toxick

CentralMD said:


> JP for Governor of MD. - Page 50 - Baltimore Sun talk forum





Now that was some good readin'!


----------



## VoteJP

*Blog-o-sphere*



This_person said:


> As a general rule, that is not done primarily because of people like you;
> 
> Cheats, deadbeats, etc., broke what could have been a perfectly fine system if people
> 
> See, when people



What you really did there was acknowledge that the law is done wrong, and the system is broke.

You are justifying stealing and abusive gov and wrongly applied laws because you blame me and other parents but your excuses do not turn wrong into right.

If the Child Support was collected the way that taxes are collected then I accept that as a reasonable compromise, but you are like the other bigots in this world that do not want to fix things, so I must do it.

.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> What you really did there was acknowledge that the law is done wrong, and the system is broke.
> 
> You are justifying stealing and abusive gov and wrongly applied laws because you blame me and other parents but your excuses do not turn wrong into right.
> 
> If the Child Support was collected the way that taxes are collected then I accept that as a reasonable compromise, but you are like the other bigots in this world that do not want to fix things, so I must do it.
> 
> .


If you really thought you wanted to fix things, you would have supported your own son instead of expecting the taxpayers to do it for you, but the reality in your life is that you have been, you are, and you will continue to be a piece of crap.

 you have no credibility, not with the public, not with your own son.

 go get another bottle of cheap whiskey and crawl back under your rock. with any luck your liver will give out before you can cause anymore harm or pain to others.

 I honestly can not respect anything about you.

 Trash all the way.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> What you really did there was acknowledge that the law is done wrong, and the system is broke.
> 
> You are justifying stealing and abusive gov and wrongly applied laws because you blame me and other parents but your excuses do not turn wrong into right.


Actually, I did none of the above.  I explained how people like you caused a need for laws to be created to protect children from people like you.





> If the Child Support was collected the way that taxes are collected then I accept that as a reasonable compromise, but you are like the other bigots in this world that do not want to fix things, *so I must do it.*


I'll ask you the same thing I've asked you before, and you've been entirely unable to answer:  How?

Do you really think that, in the one in a million shot you should be elected to any position, but in this case governor, that the governor has the authority to simply change the law?  Even if all the stars aligned in your favor, every other candidate suddenly endorsed you and dropped out of the race, and all the voting machines were "fixed" to allow only you to be elected, and you suddenly were governor, what authority does the governor have to change "the system"?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Actually, I did none of the above.  I explained how people like you caused a need for laws to be created to protect children from people like you.



When you deny your own statements then that prevents me from proceeding, and I am sure you see such denials as strong and etc, but you need to stick to your guns or else the procedures break down.

That really is friendly advice, whether you accept that or not.

And I did see your explanation in the previous posting.



This_person said:


> I've asked you before, and you've been entirely unable to answer:  How?



I shall use the position of Governor to enact the improvements.

So "how" is I will do it by getting elected as Governor and that is how.



This_person said:


> Do you really think that, ...  the governor has the authority to simply change the law?
> 
> ... , what authority does the governor have to change "the system"?



I do know that it will be a huge amount of work for me as Governor to change the laws and to improve the system, and surely I will face a lot of powerful resistance in doing this.

I do not pretend that it will be easy or dropped into my lap as Governor, but as Governor I believe that I will be able to make the improvements needed in due course and in due time, and a lot of effort on my part of the task.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> When you deny your own statements then that prevents me from proceeding, and I am sure you see such denials as strong and etc, but you need to stick to your guns or else the procedures break down.
> 
> That really is friendly advice, whether you accept that or not.
> 
> And I did see your explanation in the previous posting.


If you saw the explaination, then you knew it was not anything like what you characterized it to be.  That means  :shrug:





> I shall use the position of Governor to enact the improvements.
> 
> So "how" is I will do it by getting elected as Governor and that is how.


How does the governor do it?  Would you issue an executive order, countermanding the law?  Would you negotiate with the state legislature?  Would you simply order the departments which enforce the law to stop enforcing it?

What would be the method, once you're elected?





> I do know that it will be a huge amount of work for me as Governor to change the laws and to improve the system, and surely I will face a lot of powerful resistance in doing this.
> 
> I do not pretend that it will be easy or dropped into my lap as Governor, but as Governor I believe that I will be able to make the improvements needed in due course and in due time, and a lot of effort on my part of the task.


What work?  *Specifically*, what is it you, as governor, would do (after becoming governor)?


----------



## bcp

This_person said:


> *Specifically*, what is it you, as governor, would do (after becoming governor)?


 The question is, "What could he do"?
 If his handicap is so serious that he cant find employment in the real world, and he is forced to live on taxpayer donations for his keep, then exactly what is it that he could suddenly be able to do that would qualify him to be an elected official?
 I would think, if he had that much knowledge in running something like a state, and was able to do such a job despite his crippling handicap, then there has to be at least one company out there that would need someone of his ability.

 personally, I think that his running for a state office such as governor, and his insistence that he could do the job should be a dis qualifier for any money he receives because of his handicap.


----------



## This_person

bcp said:


> The question is, "What could he do"?


That's what I'm trying to get him to admit.  I know he already knows it, but just trying to get him to admit it.


----------



## CentralMD

Ladies and Gentlemen, "Child Support" is not his only concern.

An unimportant message from the court jester. Oh wait... I mean the fool who thinks he can be Maryland’s next Governor.   

**************
“I mean the white culture of constant competition, and greed driven aspirations, the white violent mentality, and of course the degenerate white lust.

And all of that is into the black communities but they got if from the whites and it is the greatest threat to blacks as it is a threat to us whites too. 

Like boxing and football were white sports that now blacks are accelerating in the art of beating up on each other, the whites made guns and perfected the art of murder and now it runs through the black communities, the whites invented narcotics and sodomy and racism was created by whites, and whites have spread its violent and perverted ideals all over the earth.

What you claim above as white culture needs to include divorce as a white invention, abortions, thieving Child Support, and low paying trashy jobs, and all these white cultural things are threatening the black communities.

The white laws that make blacks guilty until proven innocent, and laws directed against blacks, laws that protect white injustices, and lawyers priced for whites, and laws with no justice intended.”
***************​*Remark prompts NAACP to call for diversity training - Page 12 - Baltimore Sun talk forum


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> How does the governor do it?  Would you issue an executive order, countermanding the law?  Would you negotiate with the state legislature?  Would you simply order the departments which enforce the law to stop enforcing it?



Yes, that is correct, I would SPECIFICALLY do the job that way, and each of those ways.

It amazes me that you already know, and you put the answer inside your own question, and that makes no sense.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> That's what I'm trying to get him to admit.  I know he already knows it, but just trying to get him to admit it.



So you have some secret ulterior motive and that is why you post in such confusing ways.

If you quit going around the bush and discuss your actual concerns then that would be a more effective methods as I have made it clear that I am willing to answer almost anythings openly and honestly.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Yes, that is correct, I would SPECIFICALLY do the job that way, and each of those ways.


   Classic, pure comedy.

The only thing that could be funnier is seeing this show live, perhaps at a debate.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Yes, that is correct, I would SPECIFICALLY do the job that way, and each of those ways.


Well, those are very different ways.

Do you believe the governor has the authority to issue an executive order like that, sinceyou say you would specifically do it via an executive order?

Do you believe the governor has the authority to order the child support enforcement agencies to simply stop demanding payment, since you say you would specifically do the job that way?

Do you believe you have the oratory skills to convince the state legislators that they should do something 99% of their constituents don't agree with, since you say you would specifically do the job that way?  You can't even convince your own son, how would you convince at least half of the legislators?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Classic, pure comedy.
> 
> The only thing that could be funnier is seeing this show live, perhaps at a debate.



So true, it was very funny, and in person I do make even the roughest audiences laugh.

And it was fine wholesome humor as I do not do nasty stuff as funny.

Sometimes my style humor seems to get missed on these Forums.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Do you believe the governor has the authority to issue an executive order like that, since you say you would specifically do it via an executive order?



Since I said "I would" then that means I do believe that, since that is what I said.



This_person said:


> Do you believe the governor has the authority to order the child support enforcement agencies to simply stop demanding payment, since you say you would specifically do the job that way?



Since I said "I would" then that means I do believe that, since that is what I said.



This_person said:


> Do you believe you have the oratory skills to convince the state legislators that they should do something 99% of their constituents don't agree with, since you say you would specifically do the job that way?



Since I said "I would" then that means I do believe that, since that is what I said.




This_person said:


> You can't even convince your own son, how would you convince at least half of the legislators?



You do not speak for my son, and how I will communicate as Governor to the Legislature will be determined at that time.

Of course I am certain that I will use the same methods as all other Governors have done that same thing.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Since I said "I would" then that means I do believe that, since that is what I said.


They don't have that authority.  You're welcome for helping you not look like an ass anymore.





> Since I said "I would" then that means I do believe that, since that is what I said.


The governor doesn't have that authority, either.  You're welcome for helping you not look like an ass anymore





> Since I said "I would" then that means I do believe that, since that is what I said.


given your inability to convince even one person here, and not one person on any other forum you post on, I can tell you easily you don't have that ability.  You're welcome for helping you not look like an ass anymore.





> You do not speak for my son, and how I will communicate as Governor to the Legislature will be determined at that time.


I don't have to speak for your son, you did when you said you tried to convince him to go to jail instead of paying his child support, and you said he did not follow your advice.

A plan of "I've failed at every thing I've tried on this front, so I'll figure out how to do it later" is not really a plan, Jimmy.





> Of course I am certain that I will use the same methods as all other Governors have done that same thing.


And, they easily accomplished getting a child support enforcement system.  You've proven you can't even convince your own flesh and blood, nor anyone else you've tried, and every other method is not within the authority of the governor.

Kinda leaves you with a little problem, doesn't it?


Never mind, you don't know what reality is, so you won't see it as an insurmountable problem.  Please, provide your pointless and substance-free counter argument.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> They don't have that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, provide your pointless and substance-free counter argument.



You simply do not have any sense of humor.

Of course you have to deny that.  


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> You simply do not have any sense of humor.
> 
> Of course you have to deny that.


I don't deny it - I see no humor in making jokes about advocating for child neglect.

Can't find the humor in it the way you do, you are correct.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> So true, it was very funny


Only problem is it was not funny for the reason you thought it was.  Really, were you _trying_ to be funny?

What is funny is your apparent total ineptness at, well, everything.  You do not understand the way CS actually works, nor do you understand the way government functions - specifically the office you are currently 'seeking'.

I can laugh only because I know you don't have an ice cube's chance in Hades to win.      (See how funny that is?)


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Only problem is it was not funny for the reason you thought it was.  Really, were you _trying_ to be funny?
> 
> What is funny is your apparent total ineptness at, well, everything.  You do not understand the way CS actually works, nor do you understand the way government functions - specifically the office you are currently 'seeking'.
> 
> I can laugh only because I know you don't have an ice cube's chance in Hades to win.      (See how funny that is?)



Yes, that is funny too, and the last laugh is to be shared with me.

Me and those ice-cubes are long time old comrades and friends on our way down to the under world;

 

If you think I am funny now? then just wait till I take the Governor's Limo for a drive around Annapolis.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> If you think I am funny now? then just wait till I take the Governor's Limo for a drive around Annapolis.


Psst, you know that vindictiveness you say you don't possess?  It's showing again.  Or perhaps it is merely unbridled arrogance.

Do tell, would your ride about town include a stop at the spray paint store?  I am sure your voters would like to know how much more of your reckless behavior they will have to cover the bill for.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Psst, you know that vindictiveness you say you don't possess?  It's showing again.  Or perhaps it is merely unbridled arrogance.



Perhaps I went to far in denying all vindictiveness.

My point was just more humor of driving the Gov-Limo hahaha, and I now see you appear to be correct that it was a Freudian slip showing some vindictiveness.

I say I am not vindictive through my own religious convictions, in that I do have unresolved anger and resentments, and I suppress my negative feelings like wanting revenge or vindication, but I do see that those are still part of my equation even if suppressed.

So be it, and I stand corrected in that regard by your message.

My point of humor was that the Governor does not really drive the Limo as I will have chauffeurs to do the driving and I just get to smile and wave from the back of the vehicle.

 



hvp05 said:


> Do tell, would your ride about town include a stop at the spray paint store?  I am sure your voters would like to know how much more of your reckless behavior they will have to cover the bill for.



My days of spray-paint are done and over as that is my Tao principle in that the action is done and complete so now is the non-action of the Tao #43 in regard to the spray paint.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> now is the non-action of the Tao #43 in regard to the spray paint.


If non-action is what you are going after, I think you are doing a bang-up job.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> If non-action is what you are going after, I think you are doing a bang-up job.



Thank you.

Accomplish everything by doing nothing - I do love the Tao te, meaning the way of integrity.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Accomplish everything by doing nothing


No wonder you adore that philosophy.   

And that's working for you, eh?  Made you recognizable, increased your popularity, and earned you high-powered positions?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> No wonder you adore that philosophy.
> 
> And that's working for you, eh?  Made you recognizable, increased your popularity, and earned you high-powered positions?



Yes.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Yes.


Care to elaborate?   

Sure, you are more recognized and popular among hoodlums, thieves and village idiots, but what of the average, middle-class citizens of So. MD and the rest of the state?  Do you regularly receive words of encouragement from them?  Even one?  They are not on this forum, if they exist.

What high-powered offices have you earned?  This should be easy, as you only have to name one.

(I am guessing you will return another single word answer, and not to the positive.)


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> Sure, you are more recognized and popular among hoodlums, thieves and village idiots, but what of the average, middle-class citizens of So. MD and the rest of the state?  Do you regularly receive words of encouragement from them?  Even one?  They are not on this forum, if they exist.
> 
> What high-powered offices have you earned?  This should be easy, as you only have to name one.
> 
> (I am guessing you will return another single word answer, and not to the positive.)



I do not meet up to that criteria because that is the equation of Caesar (the gov) and not of God.

What you describe is the pretty-boy we have for Governor now, and I do not like him or what he represents.

So what you see or what you are looking for, as described in the post-quote above has no bearing on me or even on my efforts because I am promoting a new and better way and not the status quo.

My own words of encouragement came in the 19,067 votes including over 1,000 votes here in St Mary's County, and I do not want anyone else to speak for me as I like leading the charge as Alexander of Macedonia use to do.

I have no intention of following sheep, or of being led by sheep.

The Tao is hard for non-believers to comprehend, and I posted it here for the benefit of others and not just for you. 

The book of Integrity and the way = "The Tao te Ching", is for those that seek the truth.

I prefer the: *New Translation by Victor H. Mair from the Ma-Wang-Tui Manuscripts*, link HERE, but other links have better access to the other translations.

Non-action means first to do the rightful act, and complete it, then there is non-action because the deed is done.

That is why I claim the 19,067 votes because the action was complete and now that is in a state of non-action, while now I am doing that which needs to be done now in this new action.

Tao te = rightful action + done to completion = non action.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I do not meet up to that criteria


But... you said you did.   :shrug:



> because that is the equation of Caesar (the gov) and not of God.


What you are attempting to do (supposedly) with your campaign is to work for 'Caesar'.  You must meet *some* of the requirements to get into office or you'll never get close.  (Look at me...      ... telling you that as if you have a chance anyway.)



> That is why I claim the 19,067 votes because the action was complete and now that is in a state of non-action, while now I am doing that which needs to be done now in this new action.


So you did something, which came to an end.  So now you are doing something else.  That is not exclusive to the Tao; that's common sense.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> But... you said you did.   :shrug:



I meet up to my own criteria, and to the criteria that I value.

Any other criteria is a side issue.



hvp05 said:


> What you are attempting to do (supposedly) with your campaign is to work for 'Caesar'.  You must meet *some* of the requirements to get into office or you'll never get close.  (Look at me...      ... telling you that as if you have a chance anyway.)



I have met and fulfilled the requirements as I am a legally registered candidate of the Democratic Party, so unless some thing changes then I will be on the Primary ballot with the possibility of winning the election and we will see.

The ONLY requirement left is to win the election.

And I do realize that my campaign is an application to work for the modern day Caesar.



hvp05 said:


> So you did something, which came to an end.  So now you are doing something else.  That is not exclusive to the Tao; that's common sense.



The way (Tao) is in doing the right action and not just doing anything, and that includes having the right conclusion and not any conclusion, and it means knowing when to strike (act) and when to stop.

But in the end I agree with you that it is just "common sense" even though it is not very common in most people.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Any other criteria is a side issue.


Okay.  But that does not erase the fact that when I asked those questions you responded in the affirmative.  If that was not true, or you did not feel bound to those issues, why respond with a "yes"?



> I have met and fulfilled the requirements as I am a legally registered candidate of the Democratic Party


I did not mention the requirements to register, rather it was the requirements "to get into office".  Completely different.  Any doofus can register, as is evidenced by your name being on the ballot.



> The ONLY requirement left is to win the election.


Well you got the registration out of the way.  Only 99.6% of the way left to go.   



> it is just "common sense" even though it is not very common in most people.


Hey, I think we agree on something.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Okay.  But that does not erase the fact that when I asked those questions you responded in the affirmative.  If that was not true, or you did not feel bound to those issues, why respond with a "yes"?



I answered in the affirmative and I said "yes" because that is the way that I see it and that was my honest answer.

If you define the boundaries differently than I do then that does not make me dishonest or "not true" and not even as wrong because I only speak for myself and my own perspective.

If you disagree with me than that is not my business.

I said it was true, and ONLY you (of us two) are saying it is not true and that is you and not I.

If you have some secret ulterior motive as others do then that is not my business either.

I still stand by what I posted as being true and correct to the best of my knowledge, understanding and belief. 


.



hvp05 said:


> No wonder you adore that philosophy.
> 
> And that's working for you, eh?  Made you recognizable, increased your popularity, and earned you high-powered positions?



Yes, it works for me.

You and others recognize me only by this action, I did get 19,067 votes and that is popularity, and I am a candidate to be Governor and that is a high-powered position.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> If you define the boundaries differently than I do then that does not make me dishonest or "not true" and not even as wrong because I only speak for myself and my own perspective.


I did not say you were being untrue, I was asking.  However, if you have to force the square peg of reality through the round hole in your head, then it might just be untrue.

The bigger point I was trying to get at is your apparent inability to answer questions consistently and clearly.  You regularly shift your positions and shape your 'reality' to suit the environment of the moment.  Not the best trait for someone seeking to represent millions of people via political office.



> I did get 19,067 votes and that is popularity


Not necessarily.  It could be stupidity.  But you accept them as what you will, if that makes you feel better.  Just remember that you'll need WAY more than that to win the governorship.  Thusly, what have you done to become recognizable and popular on the Eastern Shore, or Northern and Western Maryland?  Do you expect citizens in those areas to learn about you through osmosis, or do you think someone in Garrett Co. will happen upon this So. MD forum and catch onto your campaign?



> and I am a candidate to be Governor and that is a high-powered position.


Really?  Wow.  What kind of power have you been granted as a *candidate* for governor?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Just remember that you'll need WAY more than that to win the governorship.  Thusly, what have you done to become recognizable and popular on the Eastern Shore, or Northern and Western Maryland?



I am working on that, and it is not an easy task, but the vote in those areas are so minor that the big action is in the Baltimore through Washington areas where the population of voters are far bigger, so I must be strategic in my efforts.

And it is still early, like I will probably run Newspaper ads on the week or month before election day as most people do decide their votes at the last minute.



hvp05 said:


> Do you expect citizens in those areas to learn about you through osmosis, or do you think someone in Garrett Co. will happen upon this So. MD forum and catch onto your campaign?



I do believe these Internet Forums have much larger influence than most people give them credit for, and I say people talking to each other is how I got the 19k in 5th District.



hvp05 said:


> Really?  Wow.  What kind of power have you been granted as a *candidate* for governor?



I took the reigns and no one "granted" me anything or any position.

I am not one of the sheep.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> the vote in those areas are so minor that the big action is in the Baltimore through Washington areas where the population of voters are far bigger


That is statistically true, but once you get into office you will be working for everyone equally.  I know you like to pander to the minority voters, but to be effective, you will need to appeal to a broader range of people.



> I will probably run Newspaper ads on the week or month before election day


Going for the Shock and Awe method, huh?      Maybe you will hit on a mass of folks with extremely short memories, so if you can be the last name they hear, they will vote for you simply because they will have forgotten the other candidates.



> I say people talking to each other is how I got the 19k in 5th District.


Or people closing their eyes and going *click*.



> I took the reigns and no one "granted" me anything or any position.


If you insist:  What kind of power have you taken the reins of as a *candidate* for governor?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> I know you like to pander to the minority voters, but to be effective, you will need to appeal to a broader range of people.



I really do not "pander" to anyone, as I say what I mean and I am very sincere, and as far as I remember than I have never really discussed any minority issues on these forums, and I would if I could ever get past the white racist that are too shallow to get into any real discussion.

It could be said that the thieving Child Support includes minorities and that is true, or immigration includes minorities but those are not really considered as minority issues.

In the "Black History" the white racist can not even get past the month's name let alone actually discuss a real issue of real concern.

It is not, IMO, not pandering to blacks when I argue with whites about their white racism issues. 



hvp05 said:


> If you insist:  What kind of power have you taken the reins of as a *candidate* for governor?



Being a candidate in itself is the action and thus the power source.

We do have to wait and see what shall come of it but to me that is irrelevant since the outcome means nothing to me.

Winning or losing is not the point, as just fighting the battle is the power.

And it is not easy to be a candidate as you paint it to be.


.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I really do not "pander" to anyone, as I say what I mean and I am very sincere, and as far as I remember than I have never really discussed any minority issues on these forums, and I would if I could ever get past the white racist that are too shallow to get into any real discussion.
> 
> It could be said that the thieving Child Support includes minorities and that is true, or immigration includes minorities but those are not really considered as minority issues.
> 
> In the "Black History" the white racist can not even get past the month's name let alone actually discuss a real issue of real concern.
> 
> It is not, IMO, not pandering to blacks when I argue with whites about their white racism issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Being a candidate in itself is the action and thus the power source.
> 
> We do have to wait and see what shall come of it but to me that is irrelevant since the outcome means nothing to me.
> 
> Winning or losing is not the point, as just fighting the battle is the power.
> 
> And it is not easy to be a candidate as you paint it to be.
> 
> 
> .




Do you ever shut up? No matter how you say it there is ZERO excuse for a parent not supporting there kids.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I really do not "pander" to anyone, as I say what I mean and I am very sincere


I understand you may not be doing it intentionally; it's inherent in your Leftist mindset.



> as far as I remember than I have never really discussed any minority issues on these forums


Can you not remember back about two weeks where you made a thread about Martin Luther King?  Or how about yesterday with your Black History Month thread?



> In the "Black History" the white racist can not even get past the month's name let alone actually discuss a real issue of real concern.


There have been plenty of "real" posts in your racially-motivated threads, but you are too deluded in your own twisted racism to accept them.



> It is not, IMO, not pandering to blacks when I argue with whites about their white racism issues.


It is when the only "white racism" is that which you are injecting into the situation.  If you did not create it there would be nothing for you to have conniptions over.



> Being a candidate in itself is the action and thus the power source.


Of course.   



> And it is not easy to be a candidate as you paint it to be.


Yeah.  You had to go to such strenuous lengths to be over 30 years old and maintain residency and voter registration for the past 5 years.  Oh, and to file that fee and associated paperwork.  I'll bet you are worn out... probably the most work you have done in 20 years.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Do you ever shut up? No matter how you say it there is ZERO excuse for a parent not supporting there kids.



Except that is not the case here.

The children are all already supported in full and not one child goes without any need based on not receiving the Child Support.

It is NOT about parents supporting their children, because it is only about State laws and Courts controlling parents and breaking up families.

There are many justifications for breaking the unjust and inhuman Child Support and Custody laws which have absolutely nothing to do with the children.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Yeah.  You had to go to such strenuous lengths to be over 30 years old and maintain residency and voter registration for the past 5 years.  Oh, and to file that fee and associated paperwork.  I'll bet you are worn out... probably the most work you have done in 20 years.



That is easy for those of you that sit comfortably on the side-lines telling us in the field how easy it is.

If you wanted to be a candidate then you would have to give your real name and picture and contact info, and instead of talking big and posting cut-downs then you would have to make a real stand on issues like us other candidates have to do.

And still that is not the harder parts of being a candidate, because the campaign can break down at any time because of huge yet unseen stresses, and that is why many candidates bail out and end their candidacy long before the election. 

I do not claim to be worn out or ready to give up, but campaigning, even in a small effort as I am doing, is far harder than filling out the registration.

.


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> That is easy for those of you that sit comfortably on the side-lines telling us in the field how easy it is.




In the field?

Are you ####ing serious?

Are you honestly suggesting that a politician is the one "in the field, fighting the good fight" and that citizens who are out busting their asses to put food in front of their kids, and keep a roof over their heads (despite the mountain of burden placed on us by those very same politicians) are "sitting comfortably on the side-lines?"


Is that what I'm hearing right now?

Because it sounds like that's what I'm hearing right now.




VoteJP said:


> If you wanted to be a candidate then you would have to give your real name and picture and contact info, and instead of talking big and posting cut-downs then you would have to make a real stand on issues like us other candidates have to do.



The only issues that candidates are interested in - especially after they are elected - are issues which line the insides of their pockets with my money.



VoteJP said:


> And still that is not the harder parts of being a candidate, because the campaign can break down at any time because of huge yet unseen stresses, and that is why many candidates bail out and end their candidacy long before the election.
> 
> I do not claim to be worn out or ready to give up, but campaigning, even in a small effort as I am doing, is far harder than filling out the registration.
> 
> .






Stop it... you're going to make me break down crying for your hardship.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Except that is not the case here.
> 
> The children are all already supported in full ....


By whom?  And, why shouldn't it be by the mother *and* father first and foremost - only resorting to others when they cannot meet the child's needs?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> By whom?  And, why shouldn't it be by the mother *and* father first and foremost - only resorting to others when they cannot meet the child's needs?



That is what marriage means - having both father and mother raising their own children.

Trying to force the condition into the state of divorce and separation is a dysfunction that is doomed to fail - and rightly so.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> That is what marriage means - having both father and mother raising their own children.
> 
> Trying to force the condition into the state of divorce and separation is a dysfunction that is doomed to fail - and rightly so.
> 
> 
> .


Please re-read the question, and then answer that instead of just talking pointlessly.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Please re-read the question, and then answer that instead of just talking pointlessly.



Please grow-up, and please hurry.

.


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> Please grow-up, and please hurry.
> 
> .





Well, he's got a point. He asked a fair question, and you completely side-stepped the issue.


Your assertion was that children are already supported, in full. The question was "by whom".




Of course, I already know what your answer is going to be - that it is the custodial and step-parents' responsibility to handle 100% of the financial burden of raising a child, while the non-custodial parent runs around without shouldering any of the responsibility for the child they helped bring into this world. And there should be no legal recourse for the custodial parent who gets the shaft, should they not be able to handle it - other than having the State (i.e. everyone reading this, who have children of their own to support, by the way) flipping the rest of the bill.

Is that about right?

Most people, however - at least those of us with a sense of responsibility more than you would find in an average tom cat - find this attitude to be absolutely and disgustingly heinous.


And this is what you expect people to vote for.




And *he* is the one that needs to grow up?

HAH!




God, I hope you *are *elected governor. It will be entertainment the likes of which has never - and will never again - be witnessed by human eyes.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Except that is not the case here.
> 
> The children are all already supported in full ....


Your assertion, Jimmy...

So, who is it you are saying is fully supporting the children? 

If you say anyone besides mother and father - why shouldn't it be by the mother *and* father first and foremost - only resorting to others when they cannot meet the child's needs?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> That is what marriage means - having both father and mother raising their own children.
> 
> Trying to force the condition into the state of divorce and separation is a dysfunction that is doomed to fail - and rightly so.
> 
> 
> .



Married or not BOTH parents are responsible for supporting the child THEY BOTH created.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Married or not BOTH parents are responsible for supporting the child THEY BOTH created.



I really do agree that BOTH parents (real bio-Dad and real bio-Mom) need to be involved in raising their own children, but no one needs the force of law in their parenting business.

When you say "responsibility" then you mean by force of law, but I say all parents' responsibilities are for each individual parent to decide and no one else.

So you want the law to force your idea of "responsibility" while I do not want any parent attacked and degraded by such force from the State or from the law.

Stolen money is dirty money, and whomever profits from it will not be innocent.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I really do agree that BOTH parents (real bio-Dad and real bio-Mom) need to be involved in raising their own children, but no one needs the force of law in their parenting business.
> 
> When you say "responsibility" then you mean by force of law, but I say all parents' responsibilities are for each individual parent to decide and no one else.
> 
> So you want the law to force your idea of "responsibility" while I do not want any parent attacked and degraded by such force from the State or from the law.
> 
> Stolen money is dirty money, and whomever profits from it will not be innocent.
> 
> .



Well if the DEADBEAT parent did what they were suppose to their would be no need to to enforce the law. The fact is some parents don't know how to put their children first. 

The FACT is that it takes money to raise a child and BOTH parents should contribute to that.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That is easy for those of you that sit comfortably on the side-lines telling us in the field how easy it is.


   Oh.  My.  Gawd.   



> If you wanted to be a candidate


But I don't, therefore I am not.  I am smart enough to realize there are others who are far more articulate and competent than myself, and they would most certainly do a better job in office than I could.

If you had a lick of sense, you would admit the same thing.



> would have to make a real stand on issues like us other candidates have to do.


You do not take a stand on "issues".  You have ONE issue you are running on... and that one's dead in the water.  How hard could your campaign be when you know you've already lost?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I really do agree that BOTH parents (real bio-Dad and real bio-Mom) need to be involved in raising their own children, but no one needs the force of law in their parenting business.
> 
> When you say "responsibility" then you mean by force of law, but I say all parents' responsibilities are for each individual parent to decide and no one else.
> 
> So you want the law to force your idea of "responsibility" while I do not want any parent attacked and degraded by such force from the State or from the law.


So, when one of the parents doesn't pull their weight (say, for example, in your case, or in your son's case), then to whom does it fall to aid in protecting the child(ren) from such a parent?

Again, when you say a child is fully provided for, who is doing the providing?  And, if you say anyone besides the mother and father, both, then why is it not appropriate to have them both provide?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Toxick said:


> Well, he's got a point. He asked a fair question, and you completely side-stepped the issue.
> 
> Your assertion was that children are already supported, in full. The question was "by whom".



It was not and still is not a fair or legitimate question because it makes absolutely no difference as to who provides since the only point is that the children are provided in full to overflowing.

T_p was only being as belligerent and arrogant as he always has been.

And nobody really knows "whom" provides since it is spread out over many variables. Like Grandparents often raise grandchildren, the biological parents do it in many cases, Aunts and Uncles help in raising related children, the Social Services provide assistance as needed, and some places it takes the village to raise the child, and neighbors help and Churches help and there are lots of other variables because the question is belligerent and arrogant whether anyone likes it or not.  



Toxick said:


> God, I hope you *are *elected governor. It will be entertainment the likes of which has never - and will never again - be witnessed by human eyes.



That is so true as it will be great fun indeed.


.


----------



## DMARSHALL

I have only read some of this thread and I can say Mr. Cusic...you will not be getting my vote


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> It was not and still is not a fair or legitimate question because it makes absolutely no difference as to who provides since the only point is that the children are provided in full to overflowing.


Ah, but it does matter....





> And nobody really knows "whom" provides since it is spread out over many variables. Like Grandparents often raise grandchildren, the biological parents do it in many cases, Aunts and Uncles help in raising related children, *the Social Services provide assistance* as needed, and some places *it takes the village* to raise the child, and neighbors help and Churches help and there are lots of other variables


When one is asking the taxpayer - who is not voluntarily providing funds - to provide funds to the child in support, then it is perfectly acceptable for the taxpayer to expect the mother and father are both providing for their child _*first*_.

This is why it is perfectly reasonable for there to be laws, standards by which parents are held accountable to provide for their children.  Then, if they don't - they can be expected to correct the situation before the taxpayer becomes involved.  If, even with the help of both parents, there is insufficient support for the child, THEN the taxpayer can be reasonably expected to possibly provide some temporary assistence.

Not having both parents providing support, but expecting the taxpayer to support instead, is very much like stealing from the taxpayer.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Well if the DEADBEAT parent did what they were suppose to their would be no need to to enforce the law. The fact is some parents don't know how to put their children first.
> 
> The FACT is that it takes money to raise a child and BOTH parents should contribute to that.



Having "deadbeat parents" is something that the laws have created. 

The law has attacked parents, degraded parents, and the law has categorized American parents as "deadbeats" and it is slander and lies.

The laws have violated our families and that is the reality.

And children are not to be equated with money because children are not commodities, and parents are not to put children as first or foremost because children are not to be idolized.

The children have enough food, housing, clothing, education, medical care, then every extra or luxury above those are to be at the discretion of each parent and not subject to the force of law. 

You or any Custodial truly do not need the law and it was a big mistake to have gotten the law into the middle of our families.


.


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> It was not and still is not a fair or legitimate question because it makes absolutely no difference as to who provides since the only point is that the children are provided in full to overflowing.



The point of the question is not to determine the identity of the provider - but the determine the EXISTENCE of the provider.

In other words: "By Whom" is a polite way of saying "You're full of ####".



Hope that clears that up.






VoteJP said:


> T_p was only being as belligerent and arrogant as he always has been.



Be that as it may, your assertion that "the children are provided in full to overflowing" is a load of bunk. I've seen the contrary with my own eyes far too often.

And yes, I will believe my lying eyes over you. 

Sorry.


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> Having "deadbeat parents" is something that the laws have created.




Wrong.

Deadbeat parents are the reason the laws were created. If there were no people who flew the coop - leaving the family they started to fend for themselves - there would be no reason for the laws.




VoteJP said:


> The children have enough food, housing, clothing, education, medical care, then every extra or luxury above those are to be at the discretion of each parent and not subject to the force of law.



I would love to find out which Utopic ÜberDimension you fell out of, but it's not this one.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Toxick said:


> The point of the question is not to determine the identity of the provider - but the determine the EXISTENCE of the provider.
> 
> In other words: "By Whom" is a polite way of saying "You're full of ####".
> 
> Hope that clears that up.



That just shows that I did answer the question correctly in the first place, and it was just a belligerent and arrogant post and poster with some secret intention and playing games.

So after your insistence I gave both of you the "By whom" and neither of you wanted the truth.

What I say and what I post is what I mean and I do not play along with childish games.



Toxick said:


> Be that as it may, your assertion that "the children are provided in full to overflowing" is a load of bunk. I've seen the contrary with my own eyes far too often.
> 
> And yes, I will believe my lying eyes over you.
> 
> Sorry.



Providing for the children is the job of custody, so if your eyes saw any children being unprovided or poorly cared for then that is the custodial doing a poor job of providing the custody.

And if you see children in dangerous or unsafe or even unsanitary conditions then you need to report the custodial to the appropriate authorities to have the children removed.

If all you do is blame the separated parent that does not have custody and is not around then you did those children wrong by failing to report the abuse.

And the thing about Child Support is that if we give more money to those custodial parents that fail to provide the custody correctly then they are not likely to use the new and more money for the children because such a custodial has already shown that they have other priorities for their money.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> So after your insistence I gave both of you the "By whom" and neither of you wanted the truth.


You eventually gave by whom, and it included the taxpayer.

When the taxpayer is involved, it is appropriate for laws to exist to protect the taxpayer - laws that include ensuring the appropriate parties (the ones you said were appropriate - both mother and father) - pay their appropriate share first.

So, inessence, you provided the proof that your position on this issue is wrong.





> Providing for the children is the job of custody, so if your eyes saw any children being unprovided or poorly cared for then that is the custodial doing a poor job of providing the custody.


Why?  Children do not suddenly become the responsibility of only one parent just because the parents don't live together, do they?  If so, why should the non-custodial have any rights to that child anymore, if they've abdicated their responsibilities?





> And the thing about Child Support is that if we give more money to those custodial parents that fail to provide the custody correctly then they are not likely to use the new and more money for the children because such a custodial has already shown that they have other priorities for their money.


What justification is there to assume that the children are not being properly provided for, in half, by the half of the people responsible to care for them already?  You're assuming guilt of the custodial parent as a given.  Aren't you just being exactly to the custodial what you claim the government is to the non-custodial by acting that way?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> ...parents are not to put children as first or foremost because children are not to be idolized.


Well, your son did get one other thing from you besides not supporting his child - clearly he puts himself before his family, too.

You must be so proud


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Well, your son did get one other thing from you besides not supporting his child - clearly he puts himself before his family, too.
> 
> You must be so proud



I figure that most people can see through both you and I, and can see that you take cheap shots because you have nothing of value to say.

And for the record - you certainly do not speak for anyone other than your own trashy self.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Having "deadbeat parents" is something that the laws have created.
> 
> The law has attacked parents, degraded parents, and the law has categorized American parents as "deadbeats" and it is slander and lies.
> 
> The laws have violated our families and that is the reality.
> 
> And children are not to be equated with money because children are not commodities, and parents are not to put children as first or foremost because children are not to be idolized.
> 
> The children have enough food, housing, clothing, education, medical care, then every extra or luxury above those are to be at the discretion of each parent and not subject to the force of law.
> 
> You or any Custodial truly do not need the law and it was a big mistake to have gotten the law into the middle of our families.
> 
> 
> .



Parents who do not support the children they created are deadbeats. And again if BOTH parents support the child then the law doesn't have to step in. 

If the custodial parent doesn't feed or buy clothing or put a roof over the child's head then the law will step in and remove the child. The same should apply to a NCP. 

You say that children shouldn't be equated with money..so are you saying that it is free to raise a child? It cost money to provide a home, clothing, food, school supplies, field trips, sports, medical and it is the responsibility of both parents to provide those things. 

I really don't see how you can be so blind to the facts. But I guess that comes from dumping your own child and running from your responsibility. As a parent I can't understand how another parent can do that. Your son was lucky he had a daddy that stepped in and was more of a man than you. Same as my child who also lucky to have a daddy that is there for her. In your son's case his real daddy even took care after him after he lost his mom.. He didn't have to do that. That is a real man and a real daddy.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Parents who do not support the children they created are deadbeats. And again if BOTH parents support the child then the law doesn't have to step in.
> 
> If the custodial parent doesn't feed or buy clothing or put a roof over the child's head then the law will step in and remove the child. The same should apply to a NCP.
> 
> You say that children shouldn't be equated with money..so are you saying that it is free to raise a child? It cost money to provide a home, clothing, food, school supplies, field trips, sports, medical and it is the responsibility of both parents to provide those things.
> 
> I really don't see how you can be so blind to the facts. But I guess that comes from dumping your own child and running from your responsibility. As a parent I can't understand how another parent can do that. Your son was lucky he had a daddy that stepped in and was more of a man than you. Same as my child who also lucky to have a daddy that is there for her. In your son's case his real daddy even took care after him after he lost his mom.. He didn't have to do that. That is a real man and a real daddy.



The idea is for Moms and Dads to stay together to raise their own children, and we call that the Institution of marriage.

When two parents separate (whether married or not) then each parents' money and status goes down as it does for their children, and it is only reasonable that the financial status would decrease.

Since you have a new "Daddy" to replace the real Dad then if you do not want to provide the custody of his child then I say give the child or children over to their real Dad and stop crying for stolen money.

You are the one that stole the Man's child and now got some new Man pretending to be Daddy when he is not the Dad, and you want the State law to go steal the real father's money so you can be more comfortable.

I say the real Dad owes you nothing, and you had no business taking the children away from their Dad.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The idea is for Moms and Dads to stay together to raise their own children, and we call that the Institution of marriage.
> 
> When two parents separate (whether married or not) then each parents' money and status goes down as it does for their children, and it is only reasonable that the financial status would decrease.
> 
> Since you have a new "Daddy" to replace the real Dad then if you do not want to provide the custody of his child then I say give the child or children over to their real Dad and stop crying for stolen money.
> 
> You are the one that stole the Man's child and now got some new Man pretending to be Daddy when he is not the Dad, and you want the State law to go steal the real father's money so you can be more comfortable.
> 
> I say the real Dad owes you nothing, and you had no business taking the children away from their Dad.
> 
> .



We all know that ALL marriages don't work out. Is it better for two people to stay in an marriage when their is physical and or mental abuse? 

I stole my child?  Yeah okay...it's more like what you did with your son... you didn't want him. You can't force a parent to be a real dad. 

You're right the BIOLOGICAL father owes me nothing. But he does owe the child something. 

A REAL daddy is the man who takes care of the child.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The idea is for Moms and Dads to stay together to raise their own children, and we call that the Institution of marriage.


That is clearly one of your main hangups.  So we have to wonder:  is a child's status dependent upon the parents' relationship status?  Does the child become a half-child once the divorce is settled?  Does the child become easier to care for or provide for?  Is the non-custodial supposed to spontaneously care less for their child simply because they do not live together any longer?  If yes, why?  If no, why then is it okay (in your mind) for that non-custodial to walk out without a care or second thought?


----------



## hvp05

DMARSHALL said:


> Mr. Cusic...you will not be getting my vote


Don't worry, Jimmy, I am sure this is one of those ultra-secret undercover supporters you keep telling us about.  They just don't want to admit it here.


----------



## Bronwyn

*Interesting*

From the urban dictionary



> *deadbeat*
> usually describes a father who dosent pay his child support
> 
> also can describe a low class male , a broke male, cheap azz foodstamp collector, *a inferior male *
> 
> *deadbeat*
> Someone who doesn't pay their bills, screws up their credit, and then *blames everyone else for their problems*.


----------



## This_person

Bronwyn said:


> From the urban dictionary



Does it have Jimmy's picture, or his kid's picture, next to it?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I figure that most people can see through both you and I,


Did you figure out why it's not the taxpayer's right to expect a law protecting him or her from parents who choose to not support their children?

Or, do you now agree it is the taxpayer's right, and you've been wrong all along?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> We all know that ALL marriages don't work out. Is it better for two people to stay in an marriage when their is physical and or mental abuse?



I find that in most cases the claims of abuse are exaggerated or dishonest in other ways, and it is always reported as a one-sided abuse when it is never one-sided.



LusbyMom said:


> I stole my child?  Yeah okay...it's more like what you did with your son... you didn't want him. You can't force a parent to be a real dad.



That is not an accurate comparison, because you say I (or fathers) did not want my son but you can not read my mind or tell me how I feel, but we can see that you have taken the children from their real Dad and there is physical evidence that you have stolen the children and then want to steal Child Support on top of that.



LusbyMom said:


> You're right the BIOLOGICAL father owes me nothing. But he does owe the child something.



Not true, and the opposite is the correct way, that his children owe their Dad.

"Honor thy father and thy mother", is a commandment given to children and not to parents, and if his children fail in this regard then it is your failure and it will be cursed on them forever after.  



LusbyMom said:


> A REAL daddy is the man who takes care of the child.



That is not true, and no matter how many times one repeats that lie then it will never become true.

And it does not fool me, but it is only meant to fool the children, and fool yourself, the other Man knows it is a lie but Men just play along because that is a female's lie and we all play along, but then it is living in lies and the life becomes a lie.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I figure that most people can see through both you and I,


Did you figure out why it's not the taxpayer's right to expect a law protecting him or her from parents who choose to not support their children?

Or, do you now agree it is the taxpayer's right, and you've been wrong all along?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I find that in most cases the claims of abuse are exaggerated or dishonest in other ways, and it is always reported as a one-sided abuse when it is never one-sided.
> To bad it occured in the next relationship too.. guess it was all her fault also
> 
> 
> That is not an accurate comparison, because you say I (or fathers) did not want my son but you can not read my mind or tell me how I feel, but we can see that you have taken the children from their real Dad and there is physical evidence that you have stolen the children and then want to steal Child Support on top of that.
> 
> 
> You LEFT and disappeared you ran from your son and the law. So it doesn't matter what your mind said or what your feelings were. YOU RAN
> Not true, and the opposite is the correct way, that his children owe their Dad.
> 
> "Honor thy father and thy mother", is a commandment given to children and not to parents, and if his children fail in this regard then it is your failure and it will be cursed on them forever after.
> My child owes him NOTHING. A CHILD is just that a CHILD that is to be loved and cared for in all aspects by the two adults that created the child. .
> 
> 
> That is not true, and no matter how many times one repeats that lie then it will never become true.
> 
> And it does not fool me, but it is only meant to fool the children, and fool yourself, the other Man knows it is a lie but Men just play along because that is a female's lie and we all play along, but then it is living in lies and the life becomes a lie.
> I can tell you the "other man" would lay down his life for our child. He treats a child that isn't his by blood just like he treats the ones that are his blood. I really don't care if you believe it or not. My child knows the truth. My child knows who loves her unconditionally. And in the end all that matters is that my child is loved and cared for.
> .



And with that I am done discussing the issue with you. You are a POS deadbeat who wants to blame everyone else for the mistakes you have made. You want to blame the law because you are not man enough to step up and be a responsible parent. You expect taxpayers to pay for children they didn't have rather than the parent who had the good time. Thankfully you will never be elected and the majority of the people in this world are not as ignorant as you.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> And with that I am done discussing the issue with you. You are a POS deadbeat who wants to blame everyone else for the mistakes you have made. You want to blame the law because you are not man enough to step up and be a responsible parent. You expect taxpayers to pay for children they didn't have rather than the parent who had the good time. Thankfully you will never be elected and the majority of the people in this world are not as ignorant as you.



It really is a matter of ethics and morality, in whether one is going to lie, steal, alienate children or face-up to the truths.

If your new Man is so great then there is no reason for him to pretend to be the Daddy when he is not. That is living in a lie.

There is no justification to demand Child Support when the child already has everything she needs. That is stealing.

And so long as her real father remains alienated then that is a failure of yours in not providing the custody correctly. That is your wrong and no one else's.


.


----------



## Bronwyn

What do i want for lunch today?? Just got my Child Support check yesterday. Lusbymom... you feel like some Red Lobster, courtesy of the Ex?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> There is no justification to demand Child Support when the child already has everything she needs. That is stealing.


Who is providing for the child's needs?

Why is it not both the mother and the father who should be doing that providing?

If anyone else has to step in for the mother and father to provide for the needs of the child when the mother and father are capable, isn't that stealing from the anyone else doing the providing?


----------



## LusbyMom

Bronwyn said:


> What do i want for lunch today?? Just got my Child Support check yesterday. Lusbymom... you feel like some Red Lobster, courtesy of the Ex?



With all that money you steal we should pick somewhere super expensive


----------



## Bronwyn

LusbyMom said:


> With all that money you steal we should pick somewhere super expensive



Oooo, like where? I'm such a greedy biatch, I should take a picture of us eating there and text it to him.


----------



## czygvtwkr

VoteJP said:


> I find that in most cases the claims of abuse are exaggerated or dishonest in other ways, and it is always reported as a one-sided abuse when it is never one-sided.



Some time they don't learn and you have to smack em around a little,  you know for their own good right?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Bronwyn said:


> What do i want for lunch today?? Just got my Child Support check yesterday. Lusbymom... you feel like some Red Lobster, courtesy of the Ex?





LusbyMom said:


> With all that money you steal we should pick somewhere super expensive





Bronwyn said:


> Oooo, like where? I'm such a greedy biatch, I should take a picture of us eating there and text it to him.



I could not have said it any better.   .......   


.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



czygvtwkr said:


> Some time they don't learn and you have to smack em around a little,  you know for their own good right?



I see that as a terrible thing to say, and I certainly do not agree with such a doctrine as that.

You need to be ashamed of your self for posting such a comment.


.


----------



## czygvtwkr

VoteJP said:


> I see that as a terrible thing to say, and I certainly do not agree with such a doctrine as that.
> 
> You need to be ashamed of your self for posting such a comment.
> 
> 
> .



It was  you idiot.  You marginalized abused spouses a few posts ago and for that you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



czygvtwkr said:


> It was  you idiot.  You marginalized abused spouses a few posts ago and for that you should be ashamed of yourself.



That does clear it up, and I do not really down play abuse of any kind.

All I meant was that I do not like dishonest and fake calls of abuse when there is no real abuse.

I did my own "sarcasm" recently on another thread and it came out wrong, so I had to explain it in a follow-up posting, and that means I do not do sarcasm well whether giving it or receiving it, so I say sarcasm is not an effective way to communicate.

Now I try catching myself on any sarcasm and stop it fast in myself.

I say sarcasm can still be effective if we explain the point at the same time but that is still playing with unhealthy fire, IMO. 

Peace.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> All I meant was that I do not like dishonest and fake calls of abuse when there is no real abuse.


Of course, you do not see a parent deserting their child as abuse either, so we know how skewed your perception is.


----------



## Bronwyn

hvp05 said:


> Of course, you do not see a parent deserting their child as abuse either, so we know how skewed your perception is.



Didn't you ever hear that song.... "Boy named Sue?"


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Bronwyn said:


> Didn't you ever hear that song.... "Boy named Sue?"



That is a great reference - love it B.

And yesterday I watched a famous old movie again called "True Grit" (1968), and in it Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) was talking to Matty Ross while they where waiting to ambush, and Rooster told Matty that he had been married and had a son but his wife did not like his friends and their son did not like him (Rooster) so the Mom took their boy and that was the end of his family.

This time watching that movie near a hundred times that finally it hit me that there was no claim that Rooster was some "deadbeat" and there was no claim nor expectation of any such "Child Support" and Rooster was the one that lost his family when the mother of his son left him.

That is another example of how the Child Support and Custody laws are all based on the modern day stealing mentality, that one can steal the children and then ask the State to go steal the absent parents' money as Child Support, and only a thief and thieving mentality can see such stealing as fitting or proper when it is not.

Thus the beauty of self education instead of popular brain-washings.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I figure that most people can see through both you and I,


Did you figure out why it's not the taxpayer's right to expect a law protecting him or her from parents who choose to not support their children?

Or, do you now agree it is the taxpayer's right, and you've been wrong all along?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



VoteJP said:


> I watched a famous old movie again called "True Grit" (1968), and in it Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) was talking to Matty Ross while they where waiting to ambush, and Rooster told Matty that he had been married and had a son but his wife did not like his friends and their son did not like him (Rooster) so the Mom took their boy and that was the end of his family.
> 
> This time watching that movie near a hundred times that finally it hit me that there was no claim that Rooster was some "deadbeat" and there was no claim nor expectation of any such "Child Support" and *Rooster was the one that lost his family* when the mother of his son left him.
> 
> That is another example of how the Child Support and Custody laws are all based on the modern day stealing mentality, that one can steal the children and then ask the State to go steal the absent parents' money as Child Support, and only a thief and thieving mentality can see such stealing as fitting or proper when it is not.
> 
> Thus the beauty of self education instead of popular brain-washings.



So John Wayne & Rooster Cogburn & VoteJP = have the true grit.  



.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> So John Wayne & Rooster Cogburn & VoteJP = have the true grit.


Wouldn't you have had to have accomplished _something_ worthwhile in your life to be considered to have "true grit"?


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> Wouldn't you have had to have accomplished _something_ worthwhile in your life to be considered to have "true grit"?



You are stuck with me now Mr Puppet, because you have no will power at all.

Or must I say - no grit.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I figure that most people can see through both you and I,


Did you figure out why it's not the taxpayer's right to expect a law protecting him or her from parents who choose to not support their children?

Or, do you now agree it is the taxpayer's right, and you've been wrong all along?


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> Did you figure out why it's not the taxpayer's right to expect a law protecting him or her from parents who choose to not support their children?
> 
> Or, do you now agree it is the taxpayer's right, and you've been wrong all along?



No, and your silly games mean nothing to me.

I really do try to answer questions, but I am not going to play childish games with you.

We have been all through this before, and it means little to me if you see things otherwise.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> No,


I'm glad you admit you can see no reason why taxpayers shouldn't feel it appropriate to expect a law protecting 
them from parents not supporting their own children.

You're on a long, bumpy, difficult road to recovery - like any addict, I'm sure yours will be filled with pot-holes and set-backs.  But, that you can acknowledge there is no reason that taxpayers shouldn't expect laws that protect them from parents like you is a baby step in the right direction!


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> I'm glad you admit you can see no reason why taxpayers shouldn't feel it appropriate to expect a law protecting
> them from parents not supporting their own children.
> 
> You're on a long, bumpy, difficult road to recovery - like any addict, I'm sure yours will be filled with pot-holes and set-backs.  But, that you can acknowledge there is no reason that taxpayers shouldn't expect laws that protect them from parents like you is a baby step in the right direction!



I have thought about it and I guess I must try to follow you on this and so I will try.

There is no taxpayer's rights as you claim, and Child Support is NOT about protecting taxpayers.

It is not even a question of you being right or me being wrong.

You want to attack and punish parents, while I want to help build up families.

You say the law has the right to force Child Support, while I say the gov has better options like try helping the parents and try saving families.

You can have your rights to steal and to brutalize the separated parents, while I am just offering a better alternative.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> We all know that ALL marriages don't work out. Is it better for two people to stay in an marriage when their is physical and or mental abuse?
> 
> I stole my child?  Yeah okay...it's more like what you did with your son... you didn't want him. You can't force a parent to be a real dad.
> 
> You're right the BIOLOGICAL father owes me nothing. But he does owe the child something.
> 
> A REAL daddy is the man who takes care of the child.



"The safest place for a child is with his or her married mother and father. All other household arrangements carry a higher risk of abuse and neglect.

* Abuse is six times higher in stepfamilies than in intact families.
* Abuse is fourteen times higher in a single-mother family than in intact families.
* Abuse is twenty times higher with cohabiting parents than in an intact family.
* Abuse is thirty-three times higher with cohabiting partners than in an intact family.

These unstable cohabiting households are dangerous places for children.

We need to work to bring dads back into families so that the nation's children will be protected now, and equally important, will be enabled to realize their potential as they move forward toward a bright future."

Link it HERE.

People try to claim they are helping children with the Child Support and Custody laws when it does NOT.

The Custody means legally taking the children away from their separated parents (usually the Dads) and then they demand unjust Child Support payments that further alienates the separated parents, and that is a fairly strong judge of morality from immorality. 

.


----------



## SilverIntrepid

VoteJP said:


> People try to claim they are helping children with the Child Support and Custody laws when it does NOT.
> 
> they demand unjust Child Support payments



1.) You hit it on the nail.  The child support I payed my ex wife went to HER new clothes, and fancy trips.  My son continued wearing the same raggy clothes that were either way too big or way too small. 

2.) For what I payed per month for ONE child could have fed a family of 30 for a month.  I was living paycheck to paycheck while she was living the high life.


----------



## somdgal77

SilverIntrepid said:


> 1.) You hit it on the nail.  The child support I payed my ex wife went to HER new clothes, and fancy trips.  My son continued wearing the same raggy clothes that were either way too big or way too small.
> 
> 2.) For what I payed per month for ONE child could have fed a family of 30 for a month.  I was living paycheck to paycheck while she was living the high life.



It is unfortunate when a parent does not use the money properly for their children.  Admittedly this probably does happen in certain cases.  If you are concerned about it, you should contact your case worker.  In an earlier thread, JP said child support shouldn't cover your car payment.  There are two ways to look at this - support being used to cover mom's/dad's car for their own use OR support being used to cover the cost of transportation for the children.  I am by no means saying that in your case your son should not be taken care of while your ex is having a fantastic time.  

This being said, there are thousands of custodial parents, both men and women, who receive *no* support from the non-custodial parent.  There has to be a "happy medium" somewhere.  Both parents should support the child.  If one parent isn't contributing, they should be held liable.   Do you agree?


----------



## somdgal77

VoteJP said:


> "The safest place for a child is with his or her married mother and father. All other household arrangements carry a higher risk of abuse and neglect.
> 
> * Abuse is six times higher in stepfamilies than in intact families.
> * Abuse is fourteen times higher in a single-mother family than in intact families.
> * Abuse is twenty times higher with cohabiting parents than in an intact family.
> * Abuse is thirty-three times higher with cohabiting partners than in an intact family.
> 
> These unstable cohabiting households are dangerous places for children.
> 
> .




I understand what you are saying about chances of abuse being higher in broken homes, however that doesn't necessarily mean that abuse does not exist within marital homes.  So what do you think should happen in a situation where abuse is occuring?   





VoteJP said:


> The Custody means legally taking the children away from their separated parents (usually the Dads) and then they demand unjust Child Support payments that further alienates the separated parents, and that is a fairly strong judge of morality from immorality.
> 
> .




I don't understand how custody means "taking a child away".  Many families have open access by both parents to the children.  You cannot physically divide children into two and therefore a decision must be made as to whom the child will reside with.  I am sure this is not an easy decision for many parents and children.  Unfortunately there are cases when one parent just honestly doesn't care.  So what happens in these situations?

I do not feel like child support only puts "poor people" in jail, as you've implied in previous posts.   There are people with a lot of money who don't pay their support, for various reasons.   You cannot force people to stay together.  So in the scenario where you have one custodial parent providing 100% of the child's monetary care, what should happen to the non-custodial parent?  If you are "poor" or have a low paying job, child support is based on how much you make.  I know people who pay as little as $36/month (a police officer, actually) to as much as $3000/month.  So I just don't feel it's fair to say it only attacks poor people.  Poor people should be held just as liable for supporting their child, whether it's $50 or $500.  Don't you agree?


----------



## hvp05

somdgal77 said:


> I don't understand how custody means "taking a child away".


You have to understand, JP is a deadbeat - er, former deadbeat.  He sees any action of CS enforcement as breaking up the family and creating problems, when those of us who can see reality know that the non-custodial has to be negligent in order for any action to be initiated.



> Don't you agree?


I'll save you some time:  no, he won't.      As with the previous answer, the reasoning is odd and convoluted - as much as his mental state - so it's hard to explain succinctly; but he definitely will not agree.  Then he will call you a supporter of thieves; don't take it personally.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I have thought about it and I guess I must try to follow you on this and so I will try.
> 
> There is no taxpayer's rights as you claim, and Child Support is NOT about protecting taxpayers.


If it's not about protecting the taxpayers from the parents who would otherwise not support their own children, and thus put the load of supporting their children on the taxpayer, then would you agree that a custodial parent should not be able to get welfare funds of any kind unless the non-custodial parent is paying his/her child support?





> It is not even a question of you being right or me being wrong.


Oh, I know that.  There's no question you're wrong at all.





> You want to attack and punish parents, while I want to help build up families.


How is supporting your own child punishing to you?





> You say the law has the right to force Child Support, while I say the gov has better options like try helping the parents and try saving families.


What kind of help are you speaking of?  Why is it the government's role to "save" families?





> You can have your rights to steal and to brutalize the separated parents, while I am just offering a better alternative.


Platitudes are not an alternative.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



somdgal77 said:


> I understand what you are saying about chances of abuse being higher in broken homes, however that doesn't necessarily mean that abuse does not exist within marital homes.  So what do you think should happen in a situation where abuse is occurring?



The law has systems set up for child abuse and I agree with the law interfering with child abuse cases.

My point is that the Child Support and Custody laws do far more harm in breaking up the family unit and we need to create systems that helps to hold the families and the marriages together. 



somdgal77 said:


> I don't understand how custody means "taking a child away".  Many families have open access by both parents to the children.  You cannot physically divide children into two and therefore a decision must be made as to whom the child will reside with.  I am sure this is not an easy decision for many parents and children.  Unfortunately there are cases when one parent just honestly doesn't care.  So what happens in these situations?



If there were cases where (as you say) one parent "does not care" then there would be no dispute and no need for any Court decision or Court order because since one parent does not want the custody then there is no dispute to settle.

But the Court does it anyway and orders one parent with "custody" and thereby legally excludes the separated parents and that process destroys most possibilities for any reconciliation of the marriage or of the child to their separated parent. 

Just because a parent says they "do not care" then that does not make the words into a lifelong commitment under force of law. 

I say unless there is proven physical abuse or threat to the child then there is no reason to order custody in any case as that is a Court violating the boundaries of the family and of the parents.  



somdgal77 said:


> I do not feel like child support only puts "poor people" in jail, as you've implied in previous posts.   There are people with a lot of money who don't pay their support, for various reasons.   You cannot force people to stay together.



It is just a fact of the law that only ONLY poor parents go to jail because money holds the keys to the jail. If one has money and pays money then they get out of jail and in fact never go to jail.

A lot of people do not want to face the reality that only poor and dead broke parents go to jail but that is the truth.

Richer parents do get threatened with jail but they never go to jail, or if the richer ones go to jail then it is for one day and then released by a little money payment. If the poorer parents had any money then they would pay to get released too but no.

The richer a parent is then the harder it is for them to avoid the Child Support collections because the Law can steal their property and payroll and bank accounts so only the poor and working poor go to jail because they have nothing of value for the State to steal.

The bigger richer people like Donald Trump and Tom Cruise have pre-nuptial agreements that circumvent the Child Support laws.



somdgal77 said:


> So in the scenario where you have one custodial parent providing 100% of the child's monetary care, what should happen to the non-custodial parent?



There is nothing wrong with a custodial parent providing the custody to their own children as there is nothing wrong there - there is no crime.

The separated parent is the one that lost their children and the non custodial parents are the ones missing out.

To have custody is the prize, to not have one's own children is to lose.

And providing 100% custody means the parent has to pay rent anyway so they would have to pay rent even if they did not have the children. The custodial would have a car with or without children, and the kids eat the same food as the custodial, so there is never a real 100% custody since it is one's own kids living in their own home then nothing is added and nothing is loss.



somdgal77 said:


> If you are "poor" or have a low paying job, child support is based on how much you make.  I know people who pay as little as $36/month (a police officer, actually) to as much as $3000/month.  So I just don't feel it's fair to say it only attacks poor people.  Poor people should be held just as liable for supporting their child, whether it's $50 or $500.  Don't you agree?



No, to attack the poor parents, and that means working poor, then we destroy the child's relationship, and it destroys the families, and it destroys their marriages or hope of reconciliation, and none of it helps the children and it does not help society.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> My point is that the Child Support and Custody laws do far more harm in breaking up the family unit and we need to create systems that helps to hold the families and the marriages together.


The family has to already be broken for Child Support to get involved.





> But the Court orders one parent with "custody" and thereby legally excludes the separated parents and that process destroys most possibilities for any reconciliation of the marriage or of the child to their separated parent.


In virtually all modern cases, custody is "shared" between both parents, and "physical placement" is simply where the children live.

However, even in your world, from what does custody "legally exclude the separated parents"?





> I say unless there is proven physical abuse or threat to the child then there is no reason to order custody in any case as that is a Court violating the boundaries of the family and of the parents.


Again, at their request.





> It is just a fact of the law that only ONLY poor parents go to jail because money holds the keys to the jail. If one has money and pays money then they get out of jail and in fact never go to jail.
> 
> A lot of people do not want to face the reality that only poor and dead broke parents go to jail but that is the truth.


Only parents who don't pay, regardless of their financial status, go to jail.  And, only in the most extreme of circumstances.  A "rich" person who does not provide for their child will go to jail, and a "poor" person who provides a percentage of their income will not.





> The bigger richer people like Donald Trump and Tom Cruise have pre-nuptial agreements that circumvent the Child Support laws.


There is no such thing as a prenuptual agreement that is legally able to cirucumvent the child support laws.





> There is nothing wrong with a custodial parent providing the custody to their own children as there is nothing wrong there - there is no crime.
> 
> The separated parent is the one that lost their children and the non custodial parents are the ones missing out.


Only if they, like you, choose to desert their children.  Those that stay involved with their kids will miss out, but that's the problem with divorce.  The custodial will miss out, too.





> To have custody is the prize, to not have one's own children is to lose.


Children are not prizes, they're human beings.  Human beings that lose out because of their parents' inability to stay together after they've been created by those parents.

Then, some parents (like you, and your son) choose to treat the children like property - calling those humans "prizes" like they're inanimate objects instead of people whose well-being is your responsibility along with the other parent.





> And providing 100% custody means the parent has to pay rent anyway so they would have to pay rent even if they did not have the children. The custodial would have a car with or without children, and the kids eat the same food as the custodial, so there is never a real 100% custody since it is one's own kids living in their own home then nothing is added and nothing is loss.


Perhaps the kids would like their own sandwich at lunch instead of sharing with their brothers and sisters mom or dad's sandwich.  Perhaps they'd like a bedroom other than where mom or dad sleeps.  Perhaps that means that the home the custodial parent has, the food the custodial parent must buy, the car the custodial parent must drive, is different than if they did not have the children with them.  And, perhaps the children need to wear clothing other than their custodial parent's clothing, and need their own doctor's visits, their own dentists visits, their own notebook for school.

And, perhaps both parents are equally responsible for providing these things.  

No, #### that.  It's not "perhaps".  These things are universally true, not "perhaps" true.





> No, to attack the poor parents, and that means working poor, then we destroy the child's relationship,


How does providing for your child destroy your child's relationship with you?





> and it destroys the families,


The families working through the child support laws are already broken - the laws have nothing to do with it (unless you think Child Support Enforcement agents secretly break up marriages?)





> and it destroys their marriages or hope of reconciliation,


Ah, so you DO think they go in and break up marriages.  What then, the potential for reconciliation is destroyed by both parents providing for their children?  How is that?





> and none of it helps the children


Well, except for that whole eating, dressing, living, having school supplies thing.....


> and it does not help society.


Except, if both parents provide for the children, the taxpayer is less likely to be on the hook providing for the children, and when they are it is to a lower amount.  Oh, and the statistics show crime is less for children of parents who stay involved with their kid's lives.  So, other than being less of a burden on society in several ways, you're right.  (wait, that's actually saying you're wrong, isn't it?)


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> ... , then would you agree that a custodial parent should not be able to get welfare funds of any kind unless the non-custodial parent is paying his/her child support?



Of course not, and yes I want anybody that is eligible for any Public Assistance to then receive it in full, and I would not want to lower the eligibility standards.

I do not agree with your greedy taxpayer claims that taxpayers do not have to pay for welfare programs for those in need.

I want to give assistance to our citizens and not to harm them.



This_person said:


> How is supporting your own child punishing to you?



It is nothing to me since I am not involved in the process at all, but the Child Support punishes and hurts those parents that are involved by stealing their money and their livelihood, and the law putting parents in jail is certainly fitting into that distinction.



This_person said:


> What kind of help are you speaking of?  Why is it the government's role to "save" families?



I would prefer that the gov got completely out of the marriage and divorce business since they are religious Institutions, but even I feel my own limitations in that the best I can hope for is to turn the gov away from hurting families.

As it has been and as it is now - the gov and its laws are hurting and destroying families and so I am trying to offer a better alternative of trying to help save families.

And the best help we can do is to put a stop to the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I do not agree with your greedy taxpayer claims that taxpayers do not have to pay for welfare programs for those *in need.*


But, if both parents were properly providing for their child, wouldn't the child's needs (from the taxpayers) go down?  Maybe some wouldn't even need taxpayer support at all!





> The Child Support punishes and hurts those parents that are involved by stealing their money and their livelihood, and the law putting parents in jail is certainly fitting into that distinction.


It's not stealing if it's the law.  You told me that about taxes and your disability check.

However, if they have a livelihood, they have garnishable wages, which means they would not go to jail.  Problem solved!





> I would prefer that the gov got completely out of the marriage and divorce business since they are religious Institutions.


People have to ask for the government to get involved.  There is no law requiring people to get married nor divorced via government recognition and/or involvement.





> As it has been and as it is now - the gov and its laws are hurting and destroying families and so I am trying to offer a better alternative of trying to help save families.


But, when asked about the foreseeable consequences of your "alternatives", you have nothing to counter.  Therefore, they are platitudes, not alternatives.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> But, if both parents were properly providing for their child, wouldn't the child's needs (from the taxpayers) go down?  Maybe some wouldn't even need taxpayer support at all!It's not stealing if it's the law.  You told me that about taxes and your disability check.
> 
> However, if they have a livelihood, they have garnishable wages, which means they would not go to jail.  Problem solved!People have to ask for the government to get involved.  There is no law requiring people to get married nor divorced via government recognition and/or involvement.But, when asked about the foreseeable consequences of your "alternatives", you have nothing to counter.  Therefore, they are platitudes, not alternatives.



I am referring to doing it my way - and not your way.  


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I am referring to doing it my way - and not your way.


I'm referring to reality.  Not your way.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> I'm referring to reality.  Not your way.



I must agree with you, in that you do tell things as it is in our mean and cruel reality. 

My points are in trying to say that we can build a better way and we can make improvements.

We do not have to accept the ignorant reality that goes on and on and on.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



VoteJP said:


> "The safest place for a child is with his or her married mother and father. All other household arrangements carry a higher risk of abuse and neglect.
> 
> * Abuse is six times higher in stepfamilies than in intact families.
> * Abuse is fourteen times higher in a single-mother family than in intact families.
> * Abuse is twenty times higher with cohabiting parents than in an intact family.
> * Abuse is thirty-three times higher with cohabiting partners than in an intact family.
> 
> These unstable cohabiting households are dangerous places for children.
> 
> We need to work to bring dads back into families so that the nation's children will be protected now, and equally important, will be enabled to realize their potential as they move forward toward a bright future."
> 
> Link it HERE.
> 
> People try to claim they are helping children with the Child Support and Custody laws when it does NOT.
> 
> The Custody means legally taking the children away from their separated parents (usually the Dads) and then they demand unjust Child Support payments that further alienates the separated parents, and that is a fairly strong judge of morality from immorality.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I must agree with you, in that you do tell things as it is in our mean and cruel reality.
> 
> My points are in trying to say that we can build a better way and we can make improvements.
> 
> We do not have to accept the ignorant reality that goes on and on and on.


You call reality ignorant, yet you can't answer simple, realistic questions.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> You call reality ignorant, yet you can't answer simple, realistic questions.



I am really only calling your reality as ignorant, and the reality of the Child Support and Custody laws are double ignorant.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I am really only calling your reality as ignorant, and the reality of the Child Support and Custody laws are double ignorant.


My reality is the same as the rest of the same people's.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> My reality is the same as the rest of the same people's.



Well than deal with this one Mr Reality, link my posting #635 HERE.

That is me quoting and linking to the reality and not my own reality.

You want to steal the Child Support because you want to save some taxpayer loot, and your reality does not give a regard to the parents or the children that get hurt under your selfish and greed driven demands.

I am the one suggesting that we start helping families and give up the family break-up laws.


.


----------



## LusbyMom

This_person said:


> My reality is the same as the rest of the same people's.



You do realize you are wasting your time right?  you can't fix stupid and he is about as stupid as they come.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Well than deal with this one Mr Reality, link my posting #635 HERE.
> 
> That is me quoting and linking to the reality and not my own reality.


Okay, let's take a look:


VoteJP said:


> "The safest place for a child is with his or her married mother and father. All other household arrangements carry a higher risk of abuse and neglect.
> 
> * Abuse is six times higher in stepfamilies than in intact families.
> * Abuse is fourteen times higher in a single-mother family than in intact families.
> * Abuse is twenty times higher with cohabiting parents than in an intact family.
> * Abuse is thirty-three times higher with cohabiting partners than in an intact family.
> 
> These unstable cohabiting households are dangerous places for children.We need to work to bring dads back into families so that the nation's children will be protected now, and equally important, will be enabled to realize their potential as they move forward toward a bright future."


Well, so far, none of this is applicable to the discussion of childl support, because none of this has anything to do with child support.  Pointless information in terms of this discussion.  Good stuff to talk about, but meaningless here.





> People try to claim they are helping children with the Child Support and Custody laws when it does NOT.
> 
> The Custody means legally taking the children away from their separated parents (usually the Dads) and then they demand unjust Child Support payments that further alienates the separated parents, and that is a fairly strong judge of morality from immorality.


Again, this is just got nothing to do with reality.  Custody, generally, goes to both parents.  Primary physical placement is just where the kids live.  Even if one parent gets custody, there is virtually always a visitation agreement, ensurances of communication between parents regarding the children, ensurances of contact with the children, etc., etc.  A parent without physical placement really needs to try hard to stay away from their kids to not be involved in their kids' lives.

All child support does is help ensure the parents have a good guideline to go on to ensure both parents are providing a reasonable amount of support to their own child.  Child support has nothing to do with the marriage, because the marriage is over before the child support enforcement has the legal ability to become involved.

So, once again, I'm in the reality of the rest of the sane world, and you are not.[/quote]You want to steal the Child Support because you want to save some taxpayer loot, and your reality does not give a regard to the parents or the children that get hurt under your selfish and greed driven demands.[/quote]How is it selfish and greedy to:
Protect children from parents who would financially abandon their children
Protect taxpayers from those same parents
Set established guidelines to help ensure the parent paying child support is protected from an emotional appeal by the parent receiving child support



> I am the one suggesting that we start helping families and give up the family break-up laws.


Again, how does child support help to break up a family if the agencies can't become involved until the family has already declared they are broken?

And, what are you suggesting that would actually help a family - when what you suggest is that the children not be supported by one of the parents?  How does that help?


----------



## This_person

LusbyMom said:


> You do realize you are wasting your time right?  you can't fix stupid and he is about as stupid as they come.


I know, I know, but it relieves frustrations sometimes.  I can call him what he is (a complete idiot), and therefore don't call co-workers that or something.


----------



## LusbyMom

This_person said:


> I know, I know, but it *relieves frustrations* sometimes.  I can call him what he is (a complete idiot), and therefore don't call co-workers that or something.



 yes I know.... I feel the same way and sometimes it relieves boredom


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> Okay, let's take a look:
> Well, so far, none of this is applicable to the discussion of child support, because none of this has anything to do with child support.
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> And, what are you suggesting that would actually help a family - when what you suggest is that the children not be supported by one of the parents?  How does that help?​




This means to me that you deny reality, and you disregard those injured by the system.

I offer better than that to our world.

And I stand by my previous posting as mine are accurate and true.


.​


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> This means to me that you deny reality, and you disregard those injured by the system.
> 
> I offer better than that to our world.
> 
> And I stand by my previous posting as mine are accurate and true.


I believe the link to the American Thinker was accurate and true.  I also know that has nothing to do with child support.

I've asked, and asked, and asked, and asked, and yet you cannot answer - how does providing for your child alienate you from your child (generic "you", not you in particular.  You in particular didn't provide for your child, which was the actual cause of the alienation)?

I've asked, and asked, and asked, and asked, and yet you cannot answer - how does child support break up a family when they don't get involved until the family is broken?

Yet, you continue to spout your lies and visions from the world of Jimmy-reality instead of sane-reality.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> I believe the link to the American Thinker was accurate and true.  I also know that has nothing to do with child support.



Well that is what takes you out of the equation and out of the conversation on this topic because you deny it and so be it.

I do not believe you add anything of value to that topic anyway.



This_person said:


> I've asked, and asked, and asked, and asked, and yet you cannot answer -



I have answered you repeatedly, and you not liking my answer does not mean that I gave none.

That is what makes you such an immature poster in that you do not accept nor respect the reality of others.



This_person said:


> how does providing for your child alienate you from your child (generic "you", not you in particular.  You in particular didn't provide for your child, which was the actual cause of the alienation)?



If you do not mean "you" than you have no business using the word.

In my postings I write what I mean and I mean what I write.

I know the reason you want to use your so-called "generic" words and that is because you do not have the stomach to word your messages accurately.

This discussion is about separated parents being alienated from their children by the thieving Child Support, and I am not using any generic words. 



This_person said:


> how does child support break up a family when they don't get involved until the family is broken?



The Child Support and Custody laws are not some secret that people learn about after separating or getting a divorce, everyone knows about the laws before getting together and before being married which is the point of the popular prenuptial agreements, so the Child Support and Custody break-up laws are there and are known before the relationships begin.

The Child Support laws give the false impression of separation and divorce being more practicable and sustainable and in some cases it is seen as profitable to get or to give the Child Support instead of being married. 



This_person said:


> Yet, you continue to spout your lies and visions from the world of Jimmy-reality instead of sane-reality.



So you are Mr Reality and now Mr Sanity and the lying Police on top of that.

I do not lie, and what I do is give my vision of me as Governor of Maryland, so mine is telling of possibilities and I do not feed into your ideas of reality.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Well that is what takes you out of the equation and out of the conversation on this topic because you deny it and so be it.


What do the statistics you provided have to do with Child Support?





> This discussion is about separated parents being alienated from their children by the thieving Child Support, and I am not using any generic words.


Then, can you answer the question?  

In case you forgot, the question was: how does a parent providing for their child alienate them from their child?





> The Child Support and Custody laws are not some secret that people learn about after separating or getting a divorce, everyone knows about the laws before getting together and before being married which is the point of the popular prenuptial agreements, so the Child Support and Custody break-up laws are there and are known before the relationships begin.
> 
> The Child Support laws give the false impression of separation and divorce being more practicable and sustainable and in some cases it is seen as profitable to get or to give the Child Support instead of being married.


Again, there is no such thing as a pre-nup which gets one around child support laws.[/quote]But, it sounds like what you are suggesting is that people get divorced _because_ they can receive child support?  Is that _really_ what you're suggesting?  If so, how does it jive with your (rarity, but accurate) claim that divorce hurts the financial status of all involved?  Wouldn't those two things not just cancel each other out, but actual end up in favor of staying married?





> I do not lie, and what I do is give my vision of me as Governor of Maryland, so mine is telling of possibilities and I do not feed into your ideas of reality.


But, they're not just my idea of reality, they're reality.  What you live is your idea of reality, what the rest of us live in is actual reality.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> What do the statistics you provided have to do with Child Support?



I surely will repeat everything over and over again, and it is up to you if you ever want to move us on.

The link and its info demonstrates that the Child Support harms our society and destroys families and alienates parents from their children.

Of course that is the same thing I said in the original posting, but I will repeat it again if you ask AGAIN and again .... 



This_person said:


> In case you forgot, the question was: how does a parent providing for their child alienate them from their child?



That is not an issue that I am talking about, and that has nothing to do with anything concerning me.

My issue is only about the thieving Child Support and not about anything else.



This_person said:


> Again, there is no such thing as a pre-nup which gets one around child support laws.[/ quote]But, it sounds like what you are suggesting is that people get divorced _because_ they can receive child support?  Is that _really_ what you're suggesting?  If so, how does it jive with your (rarity, but accurate) claim that divorce hurts the financial status of all involved?  Wouldn't those two things not just cancel each other out, but actual end up in favor of staying married?But, they're not just my idea of reality, they're reality.  What you live is your idea of reality, what the rest of us live in is actual reality.



None of that makes any sense at all, and it is just incoherent gibberish, so I have no reply for such a thing.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The link and its info demonstrates that the Child Support harms our society and destroys families and alienates parents from their children.


Again, what does Child Support have to do with all of these non-intact families?  Do you think Child Support entices people to leave their marriage?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Again, what does Child Support have to do with all of these non-intact families?  Do you think Child Support entices people to leave their marriage?



Yes, the Child Support does entices many parents to leave their marriage, and there are webs sites specifically explaining the points prior PRIOR to separation so the parents can plan ahead, link one HERE. 

And after the separation the Child Support helps to subsidize the cost of separating, which therefore empowers the separation (whether there was a marriage or not), because cash money provides the means to take-off with the children.

Another point is that Child Support gives a certain false respectability to the separation (and to divorces) in that it is giving a Governmental seal of approval in that paying and receiving the Child Support makes it an okay deal instead of a not-okay broken-up family.

Plus I do not just denounce the taking and receiving of the Child Support because paying the Child Support is debased too, in that I have spoken to many parents that paying the Child Support makes having babies into a medium cost sport. Many seem to feel that paying the Child Support makes them into a functioning parent and it does not.

I say those "happily" paying the Child Support are in fact insulting the custodial with the lowest contempt that money can buy, as if paying for sexual services.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Yes, the Child Support does entices many parents to leave their marriage.


Yes, I'm quite certain that families would choose to be in a lower financial status as an enticement 

Yet another thing you're very wrong on.  Or, if you're right on this (and, you're not), then you were wrong when you said that divorce leads to both parents and all children in a lower financial status (which, for the most part, you were actually right on).  

Which are you accepting being wrong on, Jimmy?





> Another point is that Child Support gives a certain false respectability to the separation (and to divorces) in that it is giving a Governmental seal of approval in that paying and receiving the Child Support makes it an okay deal instead of a not-okay broken-up family.


Okay to whom?

There is no approval, only a set of guidelines.  Even you should be able to comprehend that (or, do I give you too much credit?).


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Yes, I'm quite certain that families would choose to be in a lower financial status as an enticement
> 
> Yet another thing you're very wrong on.  Or, if you're right on this (and, you're not), then you were wrong when you said that divorce leads to both parents and all children in a lower financial status (which, for the most part, you were actually right on).
> 
> Which are you accepting being wrong on, Jimmy?Okay to whom?
> 
> There is no approval, only a set of guidelines.  Even you should be able to comprehend that (or, do I give you too much credit?).



Everything that I said in my own posting is what I meant and nothing otherwise.

Everything you posted in the quote above is utterly ridiculous and incomprehensible.

.


----------



## SilverIntrepid

somdgal77 said:


> If one parent isn't contributing, they should be held liable.   Do you agree?



YES.  You & I would think so, but certain judges here in St Mary's do not think so.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Everything that I said in my own posting is what I meant and nothing otherwise.
> 
> Everything you posted in the quote above is utterly ridiculous and incomprehensible.


I believe it is incomprehensible to you - because it makes perfect sense to the rest of the world.

Everything you said in your own postings is contradictory to both yourself and to common sense.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Everything you posted in the quote above is utterly ridiculous and incomprehensible.


Jimmy, have you ever used this response when speaking to someone face to face?  If so, how did it go over?

I am curious because you use it about 10 times a day around here, so you must believe it to be effective in some way.  Unless you really do get confused so frequently, which is a whole other problem unto itself..


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Jimmy, have you ever used this response when speaking to someone face to face?  If so, how did it go over?
> 
> I am curious because you use it about 10 times a day around here, so you must believe it to be effective in some way.  Unless you really do get confused so frequently, which is a whole other problem unto itself..



I do not know if I ever said it face-to-face or not, but me using it here is only done as a last resort because I really do want to reply to posters and I love to answer questions.

Whether you admit it or not - I take insults and I bend over trying to reply to childish and ignorant posting, but in some cases even I can not stoop to the level being offered.

I really do want to discuss the issues with anyone willing and I want to fight the biggest and against the strongest and give me the best shot is welcome, but I can not interpret the incompetent or incoherent postings.

I do try, and I try hard, and I regret if it is not appreciated or not adequate.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



SilverIntrepid said:


> YES.  You & I would think so, but certain judges here in St Mary's do not think so.



My own finding is that the Judges do believe in the laws and they do "think so" and the Courts are simply overwhelmed in the failure of the system.

Of course most people only blame the parents and blame society and even blame the Judges and the Courts, and blame everything except few find the truth and blame the utter ignorance of the Child Support and Custody laws. 

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> My own finding is that the Judges do believe in the laws and they do "think so" and the Courts are simply overwhelmed in the failure of the system.
> 
> Of course most people only blame the parents and blame society and even blame the Judges and the Courts, and blame everything except few find the truth and blame the utter ignorance of the Child Support and Custody laws.


Those who agree with you have the choice of not getting married, not having children, and therefore not being subject to laws which protect them, their children, and taxpayers.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Those who agree with you have the choice of not getting married, not having children, and therefore not being subject to laws which protect them, their children, and taxpayers.



I say those that agree with you are the ones given that inhuman option.

I tell people to defy those ignorant demands of the law, and I say to defy them in every way.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I say those that agree with you are the ones given that inhuman option.


Why is getting what you want inhuman?





> I tell people to defy those ignorant demands of the law, and I say to defy them in every way.


Yet, you also say to defy child support, which is not in any way ignorant.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Why is getting what you want inhuman?



You are talking about what you want, and you do not speak for what I want, and I surely do not want what you say.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> You are talking about what you want, and you do not speak for what I want, and I surely do not want what you say.


So, you _want_ the government involved, to recognize a marriage, just not to protect the child, the non-custodial parent, or the taxpayer?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> So, you _want_ the government involved, to recognize a marriage, just not to protect the child, the non-custodial parent, or the taxpayer?



What I want is first to be the next Governor of Maryland,

then

reform the dirty thieving Child Support laws.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



LusbyMom said:


>



I found out some new trivia info.

1)   *In 1701 the state of Maryland in the United States declared divorce legal.*

Link here = History of Divorce

That made Maryland the first State to legalize divorce, and after US independence it grew it application.

2)   *Twenty-five other states retain some kind of adultery law. (California is not among them.) Michigan and Massachusetts have felony adultery laws. In Maryland, adultery is a misdemeanor, punishable by a $10 fine.*

Link here = What We Really Think About Adultery


.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> I found out some new trivia info.
> 
> 1)   *In 1701 the state of Maryland in the United States declared divorce legal.*
> 
> Link here = History of Divorce
> 
> That made Maryland the first State to legalize divorce, and after US independence it grew it application.
> 
> 
> 
> .



In 1701 Maryland was not a state and there was no United States.

Try again asshat.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



MMDad said:


> In 1701 Maryland was not a state and there was no United States.
> 
> Try again asshat.



I guess in 1701 it could be referred to as a State of Britain, since Maryland is named after the British Queen Mary.

Plus I copy / pasted that from the link so they called Mary-land as a State and the point remains that our Maryland was the first to legalize divorce.

So we could change the nick-name of Maryland to *"The free State"* and add on *"the family break-up divorce State"* too. 

The first in freedom of religion (Free State) and first in breaking-up the religious Institution of marriage by legal divorce.

And posting dirty words on the board is not necessary, and name-calling is childish anyway, and true insults take a little more effort than that. 

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> true insults take a little more effort than that.


Yeah, like when Toxick, with all the restraint and dignity he could muster, explained why you are a psycho.  Too bad that bounced off you like everything else does, but hey, if any reality did sink in that would be uncharacteristic of your sociopathic, delusional mind.  So 1 point to you for being consistent.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Yeah, like when Toxick, with all the restraint and dignity he could muster, explained why you are a psycho.  Too bad that bounced off you like everything else does, but hey, if any reality did sink in that would be uncharacteristic of your sociopathic, delusional mind.  So 1 point to you for being consistent.



What you do looks like an admirable quality, but it is not.

You do what the Bible refers to as a "respecter of persons" link Apostle Peter, because you try to cheer on other posters as if the person qualifies the message which is never true.

And as I told "Toxick" that since you do not give specifics and just opinions then it is just gibberish and nonsense.

It is okay to respect person and to be respectful and do not disrespect anyone without extreme justification, but otherwise every person needs to back up our claims with specifics.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> What I want is first to be the next Governor of Maryland,
> 
> then
> 
> reform the dirty thieving Child Support laws.


The problems, of course, with this is are:
You have been told that the governor does not have the aurhority to provide your desired "reforms"
There's not a snowball's chance in hell you could ever be elected anything, let alone governor
The "reforms" you suggest, if by some horrible miscalculation of the elected officials who DO have the authority to change the law mistakenly do so, and the otherwise sane world would have allowed you to be governor to sign such legislation, do not protect the children from parents like you, like your son, etc., and would therefore actually be a detriment to society at large, and would instantly be repealed by the electorate
The taxpayers are left with a significantly higher responsibility to provide for children like your son, your grandchild, etc., and would therefore revolt against your so-called reform, and it would be impossible for you to show your face in public again.  Not because you would be ashamed to - clearly "shame" is a foreign concept to you, as it implies a sense of personal responsibility for one's own actions - but because it would have been beated to an unrecognizable form by virtually anyone near you.


But, other than those problems, it's just a bad concept, and (thankfully) could never happen.


----------



## hvp05

This_person said:


> But, other than those problems, it's just a bad concept, and (thankfully) could never happen.


I think there is something to be said for the fact that, even in one of the most liberal, forgiving, criminal-loving states in the union, the lawmakers are smart/sane enough to realize they should not let non-custodials off the hook.  I think, if JP did ever get into the mansion, he would find himself very, very lonely.


----------



## This_person

hvp05 said:


> I think there is something to be said for the fact that, even in one of the most liberal, forgiving, criminal-loving states in the union, the lawmakers are smart/sane enough to realize they should not let non-custodials off the hook.  I think, if JP did ever get into the mansion, he would find himself very, very lonely.



Until the police showed up......


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> I think there is something to be said for the fact that, even in one of the most liberal, forgiving, criminal-loving states in the union, the lawmakers are smart/sane enough to realize they should not let non-custodials off the hook.  I think, if JP did ever get into the mansion, he would find himself very, very lonely.



There is no reason to have such parents "on the hook" in the first place.

If we continue attacking parents then eventually the ideals of any "family" will be destroyed.

If I lose the election then go to the Devil if you want, but if I win then the thieving Child Support will end. 


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> If I lose the election...


*IF???*


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> If we continue attacking parents then eventually the ideals of any "family" will be destroyed.


There are millions of families across this nation that continue to exist, remaining happy and healthy every day despite these "attacks" that you claim are present.   :shrug:

The most tortured relationship I see here is between you and reality.  I am sorry you are so disturbed.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> There are millions of families across this nation that continue to exist, remaining happy and healthy every day despite these "attacks" that you claim are present.   :shrug:



What I said was the "ideals" as in *IDEALS* of family, as in having the father and mother raising their own children in a family unit.

Today, many of those millions of families (and possibly most) are defined by the Custody and Child Support laws having replacement step-parents or single parents and assorted distortions of the ideals.

So whether or not our population has given up on the old ideals of family - the laws are now destroying those ideals as fast as possible.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> What I said was the "ideals" as in *IDEALS* of family, as in having the father and mother raising their own children in a family unit.
> 
> Today, many of those millions of families (and possibly most) are defined by the Custody and Child Support laws having replacement step-parents or single parents and assorted distortions of the ideals.
> 
> So whether or not our population has given up on the old ideals of family - the laws are now destroying those ideals as fast as possible.


I know this isn't all about you, but using your own experience might help you understand just how unfactual you are.

You stated earlier in this thread that you believe Child Support to be an incentive to breaking up marriages.  This, of course, is in direct conflict with common sense (your previous, unusually accurate statement that divorce leads to a lower standard of living to all involved), and also with your own experience, in which you stated that your wife refused to ask for a divorce or money from you until you deserted her and your child - and even then it took years for her to get an order for a dime from you (which you then promptly ignored).

How is it possibly an incentive when, by your own words and experience, it was a disincentive?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> having replacement step-parents or single parents and assorted distortions of the ideals.


I know one thing that would help prevent some of those "distortions":  parents could stop deserting their kids so the kids [and remaining family] can figure things out on their own.      That would be a good thing to push for, wouldn't you say?



> So whether or not our population has given up on the old ideals of family - the laws are now destroying those ideals as fast as possible.


You almost sound like you are calling for less governmental intrusion in peoples' lives (good), but we already know you merely want to switch one form of intrusion for another (bad).  The law can not force people to stay together, you idiot.  Even if the government outlawed divorces and annulments, people would still fight and split up.

Not to mention, if you let up on non-custodials responsibilities to their kids, the incidence of deadbeat-ism will almost certainly rise significantly.  But you know that already.  Again, I pity you for having such a shattered relationship with reality and not being able to admit simple facts.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> You almost sound like you are calling for less governmental intrusion in peoples' lives ...



Yes, less intrusion, amen.

.


----------



## This_person

This_person said:


> I know this isn't all about you, but using your own experience might help you understand just how unfactual you are.
> 
> You stated earlier in this thread that you believe Child Support to be an incentive to breaking up marriages.  This, of course, is in direct conflict with common sense (your previous, unusually accurate statement that divorce leads to a lower standard of living to all involved), and also with your own experience, in which you stated that your wife refused to ask for a divorce or money from you until you deserted her and your child - and even then it took years for her to get an order for a dime from you (which you then promptly ignored).
> 
> How is it possibly an incentive when, by your own words and experience, it was a disincentive?


Since you seemed to have skipped this.....

_*BUMP*_


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Since you seemed to have skipped this.....
> 
> _*BUMP*_



I skipped it because you can believe whatever you want and I have no reply to your positions.

I gave mine with link in support of what I said in my post #663 link, so you want to claim it is the opposite of what I posted and that is your business and it matters little to me.

I stand by everything that I say, and I do not stand by your interpretations, and I am not going to discuss your perverted interpretations of my words.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I skipped it because you can believe whatever you want and I have no reply to your positions.
> 
> I gave mine with link in support of what I said in my post #663, so you want to claim it is the opposite of what I posted and that is your business and it matters little to me.
> 
> I stand by everything that I say, and I do not stand by your interpretations, and I am not going to discuss your perverted interpretations of my words.


Hard to dispute facts, isn't it, Jimmy?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Hard to dispute facts, isn't it, Jimmy?



I guess it is I that fails to acknowledge you as the giver of facts and truths and everything absolutely certain.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I guess it is I that fails to acknowledge you as the giver of facts and truths and everything absolutely certain.


You don't have to acknowledge me as the giver  

However, you say one thing, and then another that is contradictory, and your life story is contradictory (as you've reported it here).

If I'm wrong about any of it, which part of it am I wrong about?

So, did you not say that Child Support is an incentive to end marriages?  Did you not say that when people get divorced, the financial status of all involved are lowered?  Did your wife not deny asking your for support until you deserted to let her and your little son figure out how to survive on their own - thus negating your claim that Child Support provided an incentive to end your marriage?  Please, do tell what I'm saying that is wrong.

Since it's clearly not wrong, can you now see YOU are wrong?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> You don't have to acknowledge me as the giver
> 
> However, you say one thing, and then another that is contradictory, and your life story is contradictory (as you've reported it here).
> 
> If I'm wrong about any of it, which part of it am I wrong about?
> 
> So, did you not say that Child Support is an incentive to end marriages?  Did you not say that when people get divorced, the financial status of all involved are lowered?  Did your wife not deny asking your for support until you deserted to let her and your little son figure out how to survive on their own - thus negating your claim that Child Support provided an incentive to end your marriage?  Please, do tell what I'm saying that is wrong.
> 
> Since it's clearly not wrong, can you now see YOU are wrong?



I said that I would play along with you, so here I will continue.

The Child Support is an incentive but it is not the reason for a separation or divorce.

It is only one of many factors, and some people regard it higher and other regard it in lower regards, and some people disregard the Child Support completely.

There is no contradiction.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



LusbyMom said:


>



Link =  YouTube - Reposted/Updated - Family Court: the Source of the Corruption


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Yes, less intrusion, amen.


Then why did you make these statements advocating _more_ governmental intrusion... ?



VoteJP said:


> ... now the gov needs to promote and strengthen marriage...





VoteJP said:


> Like order marriage counseling or refuse to grant divorces and make adultery into a crime.


Those ideas would send the government into areas it is not currently in, and would most certainly contradict your above statement of "less intrusion".  So which do you truly believe?  Or will you choose to freely float between the two views, depending on your mood and argument of the moment - as you usually do?





VoteJP said:


> Link =  <Jimmy's pointless video>


I can tell how much you like that video, given how many times you've posted it.  She mentions corruption.  Corruption is cause to weed out the corrupt and potentially reform/improve the system... NOT to abolish the system, as you want.  In fact, early in the video, she mentions "violations of the law", which means certain individuals are inappropriately manipulating or overstepping the law, not that the law itself is wrong.

You claim the system should be trashed because it is ethically wrong; that video does not support your assertion.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



hvp05 said:


> Then why did you make these statements advocating _more_ governmental intrusion... ?



That is because I mean what I say, and my postings are true, but I do not mean the way you or others interpret what I say.



hvp05 said:


> Those ideas would send the government into areas it is not currently in, and would most certainly contradict your above statement of "less intrusion".  So which do you truly believe?  Or will you choose to freely float between the two views, depending on your mood and argument of the moment - as you usually do?



They are just ideas and are not written in stone by the finger of God.

My only intention is to become Governor and then reform the Child Support laws.

Everything else is optional or changeable or whatever. 



hvp05 said:


> I can tell how much you like that video, given how many times you've posted it.  She mentions corruption.  Corruption is cause to weed out the corrupt and potentially reform/improve the system... NOT to abolish the system, as you want.  In fact, early in the video, she mentions "violations of the law", which means certain individuals are inappropriately manipulating or overstepping the law, not that the law itself is wrong.



Well I like what she says and I like letting others know what she says, but she does not speak for me.

I am the one running for Governor and not her.



hvp05 said:


> You claim the system should be trashed because it is ethically wrong; that video does not support your assertion.



The video shows that the Child Support system is corrupt and worse.

I see no contradiction in my wanting the evil system dismantled.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



VoteJP said:


> I found out some new trivia info.
> 
> 1)   *In 1701 the state of Maryland in the United States declared divorce legal.*
> 
> Link here = History of Divorce
> 
> That made Maryland the first State to legalize divorce, and after US independence it grew it application.
> 
> 2)   *Twenty-five other states retain some kind of adultery law. (California is not among them.) Michigan and Massachusetts have felony adultery laws. In Maryland, adultery is a misdemeanor, punishable by a $10 fine.*
> 
> Link here = What We Really Think About Adultery



New important message in the News about the ignorance of the Child Support in Maryland, link HERE.

We need reform as soon as possible, and only I can get it done right.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That is because I mean what I say


I know you believe everything you say, no matter how contradictory it all is.  Your reality must be like walking through a funhouse... while tripping on LSD... and having an out-of-body experience.



> My only intention is to become Governor and then reform the Child Support laws.


Great.  So what do you plan to do in your second week?  Play on the forums and watch John Wayne movies all day?  Walk the back alleys of Annapolis much like you do in SMC?  Desert office like you did your family because your objective will be complete?  Still not sure how you think you can do one and only one job and leave the rest of the state's functions to your "advisers".



> The video shows that the Child Support system is corrupt and worse.  I see no contradiction in my wanting the evil system dismantled.


I did not say that was a contradiction.  I said your reaction was unjustifiable.

If one of your friends lied to you, would you ditch that one friend or dump all your friends and become a bigger hermit than you already are?  If your apartment were to have a leaky faucet, would you repair it or find a new apartment?

The video you posted *might* be enough to warrant some reforms in the way the system works, but the system should stay.  That, however, is not what you want.




VoteJP said:


> We need reform


Again, not what you want.  You wish to abolish the system.  And it will never happen - not the least because you will never be in a position to make it happen.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



VoteJP said:


> New important message in the News about the ignorance of the Child Support in Maryland, link HERE.
> 
> We need reform as soon as possible, *and only I can get it done right.*



I believe the Child Support system is on the verge of collapse, and every push brings it closer and closer to its end.

*Extracts from the link quoted above:*

Maryland’s guidelines are not inadequate. They greatly exceed the true cost of raising children, and amount actually spent on raising children,...

The bill would increase child support obligations so much that working-class fathers would end up paying more in child support than much wealthier families actually spend on their children. I am a lawyer, and my wife is an accountant by occupation. But we spend less on our daughter than the proposed child support guidelines would require many working-class non-custodial parents with much lower incomes to spend.

State child support agencies like to boast of increased child support collections. There are two ways for them to do that. The easy way is to increase child support guidelines to jack up the payments imposed on law-abiding people who already pay their child support in full. The hard way to do it is to make people who don’t pay what they owe now (many of whom are poor and have difficulty paying) finally pay up to support their children. Maryland officials seem to have chosen the easy way out, at the expense of their citizens, and economic reality.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Extracts from the link quoted above:


Wow, you must think everyone is real stupid in order to post crap from a link that you just posted.  Thanks.

Will you next try to tell NASA what their budget should be because you think you're a rocket scientist?  :tothemoon:


----------



## daisycreek

Once again, as posted previously (yet you still have not understood the concept)

CHILD SUPPORT LAWS ARE FEDERALLY MANDATED... EVEN IF BY SOME FREAK SNOW BALLS CHANCE IN HELL YOU WON..

YOU STILL WOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS....


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



daisycreek said:


> Once again, as posted previously (yet you still have not understood the concept)
> 
> CHILD SUPPORT LAWS ARE FEDERALLY MANDATED... EVEN IF BY SOME FREAK SNOW BALLS CHANCE IN HELL YOU WON..
> 
> YOU STILL WOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS....



That is a smart post comment, and you are partly correct.

But to me that only means that it will be a hard task for me to do, and as Governor I will not be able to just snap my fingers or sign some document to get rid of the thieving system.

The term of Governor is four (4) years long, and my best hope would be that within those 4 years that I could succeed in the effort.

The Federal Mandates only give penalties to the States that do not comply, so we would have to absorb the Federal penalties but the defiance is still legal and doable by the Governor of Maryland when I take Office.


.


----------



## daisycreek

yes, why are those penalties in place? 
 Congress underscored its intention of holding parents accountable for supporting their families when it made improved child support enforcement a key component of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)

On August 22, *President Clinton *signed into law "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)


Comprehensive child support enforcement. 

The new law includes the child support enforcement measures *President Clinton proposed in 1994 -- the most sweeping crackdown on non-paying parents in history.* These measures could increase child support collections by $24 billion and reduce federal welfare costs by $4 billion over 10 years. *Under the  law, each state must operate a child support enforcement program meeting federal requirements in order to be eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grants. Provisions include: *
o National new hire reporting system. 

The law establishes a Federal Case Registry and National Directory of New Hires to track delinquent parents across state lines. It also requires that employers report all new hires to state agencies for transmittal of new hire information to the National Directory of New Hires. *This builds on President Clinton's June 1996 executive action to track delinquent parents across state lines. The law also expands and streamlines procedures for direct withholding of child support from wages. *
o Streamlined paternity establishment. 

The law streamlines the legal process for paternity establishment, making it easier and faster to establish paternities. It also expands the voluntary in-hospital paternity establishment program, started by the Clinton Administration in 1993, and requires a state form for voluntary paternity acknowledgment. In addition, the law mandates that states publicize the availability and encourage the use of voluntary paternity establishment processes. Individuals who fail to cooperate with paternity establishment will have their monthly cash assistance reduced by at least 25 percent. 

o Uniform interstate child support laws. 

The law provides for uniform rules, procedures, and forms for interstate cases. 

o Computerized state-wide collections. 

The  law requires states to establish central registries of child support orders and centralized collection and disbursement units. It also *requires* expedited state procedures for child support enforcement. 

o Tougher penalties. 

Under the law, states can implement tough child support enforcement techniques. *The law expands wage garnishment, allows states to seize assets, allows states to require community service in some cases, and enable states to revoke drivers and professional licenses for parents who owe delinquent child support. *
o "Families First." 

Under the"Family First" policy, *families no longer receiving assistance will have priority in the distribution of child support arrears. *This new policy will bring families who have left welfare for work about $1 billion in support over the first six years. 



FEDERAL LAW-THAT MEANS MARYLAND DOES WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS TO DO


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



daisycreek said:


> yes, why are those penalties in place?
> Congress underscored its intention of holding parents accountable for supporting their families when it made improved child support enforcement a key component of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)
> 
> On August 22, *President Clinton *signed into law "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)



I remember when that law passed, and many of us Democrats saw Bill Clinton as betraying our Party and our principles in signing that hateful and mean bill pushed by the worst of the Republican ideals.

It was wrong in the beginning, and it is wrong now, and I will be happy to lead Maryland in the States' defiance of those wicked demands by the federal gov in this regard.



daisycreek said:


> *Under the  law, each state must operate a child support enforcement program meeting federal requirements in order to be eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grants.
> 
> FEDERAL LAW-THAT MEANS MARYLAND DOES WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS TO DO*



Worse case scenario is that the Feds would deny that TANF block grant.

And that is a small price to pay for stopping the ignorance of the Child Support laws.

It can be done, and as Governor then I will get it done whether we are penalized or not.


.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Worse case scenario is that the Feds would deny that TANF block grant.  And that is a small price to pay for stopping the ignorance of the Child Support laws.


Hmm, you have said the government is required to provide welfare.  And, in your warped view, a family can live a wonderful life "to overflowing" on welfare.  But if a family is not receiving their TANF... and they're not receiving CS... what are they to survive on?


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



hvp05 said:


> And, in your warped view, a family can live a wonderful life "to overflowing" on welfare.



That is just your twisted interpretation of my postings, but that is not quite what I said or say.

The fact that families on Welfare have all they need to overflowing is what the State and Federal laws say concerning the Child Support cash, in that the families on Welfare do not receive the Child Support when it does get paid and the State keeps the stolen loot into the State treasury.

It is the c/s law that says the families have everything needed to overflowing, and you are projecting that into my words where I am agreeing with the law in that regard.

Even the richer Custodials would and could have everything to overflowing if they would actually use the money in proving the needs and not for their own pleasures and ambitions.



hvp05 said:


> But if a family is not receiving their TANF... and they're not receiving CS... what are they to survive on?



We would have to work out some solution, and as Governor than I would demand that our Federal representatives work on a better solution from the Federal level.

I have said it would be a lot of work and a difficult task but it can be done.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The Child Support is an incentive but it is not the reason for a separation or divorce.
> 
> It is only one of many factors, and some people regard it higher and other regard it in lower regards, and some people disregard the Child Support completely.


So, Child Support doesn't actually break up families.

Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



kwillia said:


> Wrong.



*Divorce courts harass our troops and small businesses*: 

State courts also jail returning reservists based on their inability to pay excessive child support levels that accumulated after they were called into service at pay levels far lower than what they received in civilian employment. The Bradley Amendment keeps their child support from being reduced retroactively when they return from the field of battle, even if they had no time to get their child support payments reduced before being suddenly called up and sent into battle. The Bradley Amendment has contributed to state courts jailing many hapless fathers, including “a veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage before being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.” It also has resulted in “a Texas man wrongly accused in 1980 of murder” being billed “nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison” and a “Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father.”

Even if a reservist manages to hire a lawyer to file a motion to reduce his child support payments to an affordable level while he is overseas, the child support agency often simply refuses to do so (sadly, this is not surprising given that child support agencies have a financial incentive to artificially inflate child support levels, since they receive federal funds based in part on how much child support they collect).

Nor can soldiers called off to battle just pay the child support in advance, if they have the money, to avoid complications of paying on a monthly basis while abroad.

Link it here = Divorce courts harass our troops and small businesses

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> *Divorce courts harass our troops and small businesses*:
> 
> State courts also jail returning reservists based on their inability to pay excessive child support levels that accumulated after they were called into service at pay levels far lower than what they received in civilian employment. The Bradley Amendment keeps their child support from being reduced retroactively when they return from the field of battle, even if they had no time to get their child support payments reduced before being suddenly called up and sent into battle. The Bradley Amendment has contributed to state courts jailing many hapless fathers, including “a veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage before being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.” It also has resulted in “a Texas man wrongly accused in 1980 of murder” being billed “nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison” and a “Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father.”
> 
> Even if a reservist manages to hire a lawyer to file a motion to reduce his child support payments to an affordable level while he is overseas, the child support agency often simply refuses to do so (sadly, this is not surprising given that child support agencies have a financial incentive to artificially inflate child support levels, since they receive federal funds based in part on how much child support they collect).
> 
> Nor can soldiers called off to battle just pay the child support in advance, if they have the money, to avoid complications of paying on a monthly basis while abroad.


Given that this is a link from you, I doubt its honesty.

However, if true, _this_ certainly would need to be investigated, and corrective action taken.

Of course, this has nothing to do with your suggestion, but still.....


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That is just your twisted interpretation of my postings, but that is not quite what I said or say.


Er, I said, "a family can live a wonderful life 'to overflowing' on welfare" and you said, "The fact that families on Welfare have all they need to overflowing..."  How is my interpretation twisted?  The reason the family is on welfare is irrelevant, really.



> you are projecting that into my words where I am agreeing with the law in that regard.


   You are making less sense than normal today.  How can I project something into your words if you actually do believe that?   



> We would have to work out some solution, and as Governor than I would demand that our Federal representatives work on a better solution from the Federal level.


Wow.  All this time you have been rambling on about destroying the CS system, which would necessarily lead to families losing their government aid... and yet you do not have a replacement plan in mind.

Thus, you have no answer for how those families would be expected to survive.  Do you expect them to resort to crime as easily as you have?

I guess we can chalk your claims of caring for families up to being another lie.  I lost count how many items are on that list, but I know it's a lot.


----------



## daisycreek

I suggest you review the "Soldiers & Sailors Relief Act" as  per usual J.P., you have put your own twist on the law.


----------



## LusbyMom

So is it okay for the NCP to live a life of "overflowing" as you call it and not support the child at all?


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



daisycreek said:


> I suggest you review the "Soldiers & Sailors Relief Act" as  per usual J.P., you have put your own twist on the law.



That was from 1940 and the thieving Child Support laws overruled it.

See the *May 2009* report in my posting linked HERE.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> So is it okay for the NCP to live a life of "overflowing" as you call it and not support the child at all?



What I say is that the non-Custodial Parents (NCP) do not have life overflowing because the NCP has had their children stolen from them through the Custody laws, and then the NCP is slandered and robbed by the Child Support laws, and the children are in dire need of the NCP far more-so than anything else.

The NCPs are not getting away with anything, and it is the NCP that are being cheated and mistreated, and if we want to help save the marriage or to preserve the family or to stop the children's alienation then we must stop the ignorant affront against the non-Custodial parents. 

The idiotic Child Support and Custody laws only want money as cold cash in total disregard for the damage it does to the NCPs and done to the children.

The NCP never wins, as it is totally impossible to win when a parent loses their own children. 


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> That was from 1940 and the thieving Child Support laws overruled it.
> 
> See the May 2009 report in my posting.


Here is a snippet of the *current* guidelines issued to judges regarding just such cases as you posted (without any good basis in fact):

The anticipatory relief provision is set out in 50 U.S.C. App. §591:
ANTICIPATORY RELIEF.
(a) APPLICATION FOR RELIEF.—A servicemember may, during military service or within 180 days of termination of or release from military service, apply to a court for relief— (1) from any obligation or liability incurred by the servicemember before the servicemember’s military service; or (2) from a tax or assessment falling due before or during the servicemember’s military service.

*These anticipatory relief provisions can be used to request relief from pre-service obligations, such as child support or alimony*, when a prospective breach is likely. *For example, when the SM is earning more in his civilian job before mobilization than he will be earning on active duty, and the civilian wage garnishment will terminate upon his call to active duty, the SM should use this section to request a reduction in child support or alimony* and to request a new garnishment from DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) to pay the other party on a timely basis.​


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> What I say is that the non-Custodial Parents (NCP) do not have life overflowing because the NCP has had their children stolen from them through the Custody laws,


Given that the vast majority of custody is granted as "shared", this statement makes no sense





> and then the NCP is slandered and robbed by the Child Support laws,


The child support laws require both parents to provide for support of their shared children - protecting the children, each parent, and the taxpayers.  That's slander how?  That's robbed how?





> and the children are in dire need of the NCP far more-so than anything else.


Being there, financially, physically, and emotionally for the kids is up to the parent, not the law.





> The NCPs are not getting away with anything, and it is the NCP that are being cheated and mistreated,


Except, of course, you can't show HOW this could be true....





> and if we want to help save the marriage or to preserve the family or to stop the children's alienation then we must stop the ignorant affront against the non-Custodial parents.


Except, you said above  that child support laws do not, by themselves, mean diddly to whether a marriage stays together - so your claim of "saving the marriage or preserve the family" means nothing.  And, since it's up to the parent to keep their relationship with their child, that claim means nothing.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Here is a snippet of the *current* guidelines issued to judges regarding just such cases as you posted (without any good basis in fact):
> 
> The anticipatory relief provision is set out in 50 U.S.C. App. §591:
> ANTICIPATORY RELIEF.
> (a) APPLICATION FOR RELIEF.—A servicemember may, during military service or within 180 days of termination of or release from military service, apply to a court for relief— (1) from any obligation or liability incurred by the servicemember before the servicemember’s military service; or (2) from a tax or assessment falling due before or during the servicemember’s military service.
> 
> *These anticipatory relief provisions can be used to request relief from pre-service obligations, such as child support or alimony*, when a prospective breach is likely. *For example, when the SM is earning more in his civilian job before mobilization than he will be earning on active duty, and the civilian wage garnishment will terminate upon his call to active duty, the SM should use this section to request a reduction in child support or alimony* and to request a new garnishment from DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) to pay the other party on a timely basis.​



I am not certain of the particulars, but it is not a surprise that it would create a new provision to stop some of the injustices done to the military personnel, but it does not apply to average citizens, and if the soldier does not know that particular escape law then 180 days do pass by very quickly.

So my ideals of Child Support reform would be far more sweeping and far more beneficial than that.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I am not certain of the particulars, but it is not a surprise that it would create a new provision to stop some of the injustices done to the military personnel, but it does not apply to average citizens, and if the soldier does not know that particular escape law then 180 days do pass by very quickly.
> 
> So my ideals of Child Support reform would be far more sweeping and far more beneficial than that.


This is why one has a lawyer, and why the military provides counseling for free to members.

And, average citizens do not get deployed to a combat zone changing their income and their ability to work in a normal fashion with the court system, so there is not really a need for this for average citizens.

Your "reform" would be far more sweeping, but with absolutely no benefits at all to anyone.


----------



## hvp05

> VoteNO-JP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would have to work out some solution, and as Governor than I would demand that our Federal representatives work on a better solution from the Federal level.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  All this time you have been rambling on about destroying the CS system, which would necessarily lead to families losing their government aid... and yet you do not have a replacement plan in mind.
> 
> Thus, you have no answer for how those families would be expected to survive.  Do you expect them to resort to crime as easily as you have?
> 
> I guess we can chalk your claims of caring for families up to being another lie.  I lost count how many items are on that list, but I know it's a lot.
Click to expand...

Still curious about this, Jimmy.

What kind of plan would you pursue to help families survive in the void of receiving neither child support nor government aid?

Or do you really not care about what happens to those folks as long as you can accomplish your petty, vengeful mission to destroy the CS system?

You have continually claimed this fight is not about you, etc., but I can't remember a time when that claim has seemed more untrue than now.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



hvp05 said:


> Still curious about this, Jimmy.
> 
> What kind of plan would you pursue to help families survive in the void of receiving neither child support nor government aid?
> 
> Or do you really not care about what happens to those folks as long as you can accomplish your petty, vengeful mission to destroy the CS system?
> 
> You have continually claimed this fight is not about you, etc., but I can't remember a time when that claim has seemed more untrue than now.



I said it would need to be worked out, and it is impossible to do ahead of time.

The Feds might (only might) cut off the TANF but that is not likely, and it is very possible to end the Child Support injustices in a way that would not affect the Fed requirements, and if they cut off some payments then it could be made up in savings elsewhere. Like we would no longer pay the c/s thieves and so that money could be used elsewhere. 

I have said it would not be easy, and real reform of the system would take a few years of hard work.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I said it would need to be worked out, and it is impossible to do ahead of time.


Good plan - strong leadership.


:shrug: = Jimmy


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> What I say is that the non-Custodial Parents (NCP) do not have life overflowing because the NCP has had their children stolen from them through the Custody laws, and then the NCP is slandered and robbed by the Child Support laws, and the children are in dire need of the NCP far more-so than anything else.
> You can't say that all NCP's have their children stolen from them. Although in some cases the CP might keep the child from the NCP. But what about those NCP's who chose NOT to be involved with their children? What about the ones who ditch the kid for something better? MANY divorced families have shared custody or even if it's not 50/50 both parents are still involved and the child can live a much happier life then if 2 parents stayed together. Your own case is a perfect example. The CP didn't steal your son. You split and took off and left your son.
> 
> The NCPs are not getting away with anything, and it is the NCP that are being cheated and mistreated, and if we want to help save the marriage or to preserve the family or to stop the children's alienation then we must stop the ignorant affront against the non-Custodial parents.
> The children are the ones being cheated and mistreated when a NCP fails to be involved emotionally, physically and financially
> 
> 
> The idiotic Child Support and Custody laws only want money as cold cash in total disregard for the damage it does to the NCPs and done to the children.
> 
> The NCP never wins, as it is totally impossible to win when a parent loses their own children.
> The NCP can "win" as you call it. If they lose their children they lose them by choice. Again many NCP's are totally involved in their child's life. Some chose to not be involved and that has nothing to do with the child support laws. That has to deal with the choices the NCP has made.
> 
> .


----------



## hvp05

VoteNO-JP said:


> I said it would need to be worked out, and it is impossible to do ahead of time.


You say that about everything.  Jeesh, Jimmy, this is your ONE issue, the ONE thing that you are supposed to know something about.  Yet, when asked for details you give none - practically every time.

That sort of nebulousness and uncertainty are reason enough to warrant voters to look right past you as a serious candidate.

(And then there's the other 849 reasons.)


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> You can't say that all NCP's have their children stolen from them. Although in some cases the CP might keep the child from the NCP. But what about those NCP's who chose NOT to be involved with their children? What about the ones who ditch the kid for something better? MANY divorced families have shared custody or even if it's not 50/50 both parents are still involved and the child can live a much happier life then if 2 parents stayed together. Your own case is a perfect example. The CP didn't steal your son. You split and took off and left your son.
> 
> The children are the ones being cheated and mistreated when a NCP fails to be involved emotionally, physically and financially
> 
> The NCP can "win" as you call it. If they lose their children they lose them by choice. Again many NCP's are totally involved in their child's life. Some chose to not be involved and that has nothing to do with the child support laws. That has to deal with the choices the NCP has made.



I realize that many people believe that way, but it is not true.

It is just based on feelings and not on reality.

No parent loses or separates from their own children except by some form of coercion or by pressure or force.

People want to blame the non custodial parents but that blame is an emotional outburst and it is not true.

The 50/50 custody is a cheap repair for a huge problem. 

The children of divorce are always cheated, but the children are also cheated by the blame game and by the fighting over money.

I say we can fix or at least improve the problems.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I realize that many people believe that way, but it is not true.
> 
> It is just based on feelings and not on reality.


People believe it because it is their reality.  Hell, it was your son's reality.





> No parent loses or separates from their own children except by some form of coercion or by pressure or force.


They call that "choice" out here in the real world.





> I say we can fix or at least improve the problems.


Yes, we can.  Not with your suggestions, but it can be made better, of course.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> So is it okay for the NCP to live a life of "overflowing" as you call it and not support the child at all?



*Levi Johnston to Pay Back Child Support to the rich Palin clan.*

An Alaskan judge has ordered Levi Johnston to pay 14 months of back child support for his son, Tripp, New York's Daily News reports.

A figure has not been determined yet, but Johnston's ex-fiancée, Bristol Palin, is asking for a retroactive total of $19,232 and a monthly sum of $1,700 going forward, according to the Daily News. Johnston, 19, had paid Palin $4,400 last year.

While Palin, 19, attended the Thursday court hearing, Johnston, who posed for Playgirl last month, was a no-show.

A trial is set for Sept. 23.  Link.

Second story of stealing the child too = Bristol Palin seeks sole custody of son

.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> *Levi Johnston to Pay Back Child Support to the rich Palin clan.*
> 
> An Alaskan judge has ordered Levi Johnston to pay 14 months of back child support for his son, Tripp, New York's Daily News reports.
> 
> A figure has not been determined yet, but Johnston's ex-fiancée, Bristol Palin, is asking for a retroactive total of $19,232 and a monthly sum of $1,700 going forward, according to the Daily News. Johnston, 19, had paid Palin $4,400 last year.
> 
> While Palin, 19, attended the Thursday court hearing, Johnston, who posed for Playgirl last month, was a no-show.
> 
> A trial is set for Sept. 23.  Link.
> 
> Second story of stealing the child too = Bristol Palin seeks sole custody of son
> 
> .



He made a lot of money waving his weiner around for perverts like you to ogle. Why shouldn't he support his child?

It doesn't matter if the Palin's have money. What matters is the income of the two parents. His is much, much higher than hers.

As for custody: his family has drug issues, he's a bad moral example, and he's a loser. Any reasonable parent would do the same to protect their child from a lowlife deadbeat loser like that.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Levi Johnston to Pay Back Child Support to the rich Palin clan.


Yeah, I'm sure he's hurting after all the money he has made being a whore to the anti-Palin media establishments.   



> Second story of stealing the child too


Gee, could it be because he's a horrible influence?





> Palin also called her ex's recent nude Playgirl photo shoot "risqué," expressed concern about his possible substance abuse after seeing a tweet about him seeking "weed" and requested that Johnston's mother, Sherry, not be allowed unsupervised visits with Tripp following her drug arrest earlier this year.


Bristol can not be considered to be "stealing" Tripp if Levi wants little to nothing to do with him.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



MMDad said:


> He made a lot of money waving his weiner around for perverts like you to ogle. Why shouldn't he support his child?
> 
> It doesn't matter if the Palin's have money. What matters is the income of the two parents. His is much, much higher than hers.
> 
> As for custody: his family has drug issues, he's a bad moral example, and he's a loser. Any reasonable parent would do the same to protect their child from a lowlife deadbeat loser like that.



The issue is that there is no reason for the law or the Courts or the gov to get involved in such a personal dispute.

The child is living in luxury right now as they demand more loot.

The gov is here to protect and serve society, but in this case the father has done nothing that could be viewed as a real crime.

He is being prosecuted and robbed when he has done nothing wrong, and there is no victim.

That interference is NOT the job of big-daddy gov.

In the older days there were shotgun marriages to settle such disputes, but she does not want to marry the father of her child - oh no, she only wants the big-daddy gov to steal the Dad's money, and steal his child too.

And if our gov keeps this ignorance going then our social structure will be completely undermined and ruined.


.


----------



## Geruch

OMG, This has to be some kind of joker. This can't be for real. lmao
Nobody in their right mine that's running for Governor would post on a forum.

There's no way you can stop custodial parents from getting child support. 
Raising children isn't Free.
votejp-cusick


----------



## This_person

Geruch said:


> OMG, This has to be some kind of joker. This can't be for real. lmao
> Nobody in their right mine that's running for Governor would post on a forum.
> 
> There's no way you can stop custodial parents from getting child support.
> Raising children isn't Free.



He's not in his right mind.

He doesn't believe raising children is free, simply not the responsibility of the parent who chooses not to be around.  In this case with Levi and Bristol, he feels it is Bristol, and her family's, responsibility to raise the child and pay for all things the child needs.  Anything they can't provide, you and I can provide via our taxes.  

Again, he's not in his right mind, so you were correct to suggest that no one in their right mind would run for governor and post on here.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> He's not in his right mind.



Cool Hand Luke = Gotta get your mind right  ....  you gonna get your mind right. 


.


----------



## kwillia

VoteJP said:


> Cool Hand Luke = Gotta get your mind right  ....  you gonna get your mind right.
> 
> 
> .



Is this tonight's Jibbersish thread?


----------



## This_person

kwillia said:


> Is this tonight's Jibbersish thread?



That would be ANY thread Jimmy posts in.


----------



## hvp05

kwillia said:


> Jibbersish


Are you saying JPC is so whacked he falls into his own class of stupidtalk?  Beyond "jibberish", it's jibbersish!  I concur.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



VoteJP said:


> *Levi Johnston to Pay Back Child Support to the rich Palin clan.*
> 
> An Alaskan judge has ordered Levi Johnston to pay 14 months of back child support for his son, Tripp, New York's Daily News reports.
> 
> A figure has not been determined yet, but Johnston's ex-fiancée, Bristol Palin, is asking for a retroactive total of $19,232 and a monthly sum of $1,700 going forward, according to the Daily News. Johnston, 19, had paid Palin $4,400 last year.
> 
> While Palin, 19, attended the Thursday court hearing, Johnston, who posed for Playgirl last month, was a no-show.
> 
> A trial is set for Sept. 23.  Link.
> 
> Second story of stealing the child too = Bristol Palin seeks sole custody of son



I say if the Court has to get in the middle of such a relationship dispute, then they need to tell the two to get married and raise the child together.

They were engaged and they did make a baby and so get married then.

It is insane for the law to turn that father into a criminal parent, and to pay that woman for her infidelity.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I say if the Court has to get in the middle of such a relationship dispute, then they need to tell the two to get married and raise the child together.
> 
> They were engaged and they did make a baby and so get married then.
> 
> It is insane for the law to turn that father into a criminal parent, and to pay that woman for her infidelity.


Marriage is a voluntary thing, not a coerced kind of thing.

The law is not about forcing people to live in a certain manner, merely about protecting other people from bad people.  Only a bad person would not support their own child, and thus the other parent, the child, and the taxpayer are all protected from the bad person.  Equally, the parent who does not have primary physical placement of the child is protected by establishing standards by which they must support, instead of something arbitrary.

It is not acceptable for the law to force people to marry, nor get divorced, only to protect others.  Therefore, there is no making anyone into a criminal, merely establishing and enforcing community standards on a parent's responsibility to support their own child.

When was Bristol shown to have infidelity?  Or, are you like Nuck, and just make stuff up for no reason?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> When was Bristol shown to have infidelity?



There is a wider world than you limited dictionary, so infidelity means more than just sexual deviance.

The word "infidel" comes from the same root meaning of unfaithfulness to principles, infidelity to God, and more.

So that woman had agreed to marry the Man and she became pregnant too, and she told of their engagement to the press and to the world, and then like a spoiled brat she shirked her duty (infidelity to her word) and instead of marrying the father of their child she demands cold cash through the thieving system of Child Support.

That is what was meant - in that she is an infidel extreme.



This_person said:


> Or, are you like Nuck, and just make stuff up for no reason?



My opinion is that the poster "Nuck" as you call him, is far superior to you in every way, and that is why you fail to communicate on his level.

Even you slandering other posters here behind his back just demonstrates your petty ways on this forum.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> There is a wider world than you limited dictionary, so infidelity means more than just sexual deviance.
> 
> The word "infidel" comes from the same root meaning of unfaithfulness to principles, infidelity to God, and more.
> 
> So that woman had agreed to marry the Man and she became pregnant too, and she told of their engagement to the press and to the world, and then like a spoiled brat she shirked her duty (infidelity to her word) and instead of marrying the father of their child she demands cold cash through the thieving system of Child Support.
> 
> That is what was meant - in that she is an infidel extreme.


Are you sure it was Bristol who was unwilling to wed?

If she were still willing to wed, but he was not, would she be the infidel?  Or, since he was the one who declined to marry her, AND he agreed to personally take care of his child but then does not, wouldn't it be Levi who was the infidel (by your definition) squared, and Bristol totally innocent?


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



This_person said:


> Are you sure it was Bristol who was unwilling to wed?
> 
> If she were still willing to wed, but he was not, would she be the infidel?  Or, since he was the one who declined to marry her, AND he agreed to personally take care of his child but then does not, wouldn't it be Levi who was the infidel (by your definition) squared, and Bristol totally innocent?



I realize you want to catch me in some silly trap, but I do not want to play such games with anyone.

If you have any of your own feelings about it then you certainly did not express any.

My comment only applies to the real situation as I described it in my posting and nothing else.

It was not a principle that applies to everyone or to any other scenario.

There is no playing "if this" or "maybe that" or "what if" because that has nothing to do with reality.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I realize you want to catch me in some silly trap, but I do not want to play such games with anyone.
> 
> If you have any of your own feelings about it then you certainly did not express any.
> 
> My comment only applies to the real situation as I described it in my posting and nothing else.
> 
> It was not a principle that applies to everyone or to any other scenario.
> 
> There is no playing "if this" or "maybe that" or "what if" because that has nothing to do with reality.


Bristol did not decide not to marry, Levi did.

Bristol does not forgo her parental responsibilities, Levi does.

That makes Levi, per your definition, guilty of infidelity, twice.

The government has no business getting involved, per you, with marriage.  Therefore, it has no business telling people to get married.

The government does has an implicit responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves - like children from parents who will not support them.  Like you. Like Jimmy, Jr.  Like Levi.  And, therefore has a responsibility to protect this child of Levi's from Levi's failure to follow through on his own word to personally take responsibility for his own child.  The responsibility for Bristol's child falls on Bristol and Levi first, their families second, their extended families third, charitible organizations fourth, and involuntary charity like taxpayers fifth.


----------



## Geruch

Your not a man, Your a little mouse. Anyone that would get their own mother to call their ex. To ask if they would drop the case because they owe back child support. Is not much of a man in my book.


> After years of paying child support and not paying some times, and my son turned 18, then I was still behind by some $27,000. arrears of c/s and *my mother asked the so-called custodial to forgive the debt*. Then the custodial went to the c/s enforcement office and closed my child support case. There was no public assistance. :arrow: My ego would never had asked for the case to be closed but mother did it just fine. :?: It is a win - win situation because it even gives the custodials the chance to finnally (sic) do the right thing.


[L=Link]Latest posts of: JPC,Sr[/L]

I love my children very much, I would do whatever it takes. To make sure my children have what the need and some. Children needs come first before our own. You help bring a child into this world. You should have help support your own child. But no you put your tail between your legs and ran. You travel to other states and that's why you got behind. You didn't come back until your child was almost 18.

You supported your child when you was married. Support doesn't stop once your divorce. You believe that parents should work it out. I bet you think your a great example to follow, right? Well your DEAD WRONG, I don't think so. It's fools like you that give men a bad name. Stand up and be a man. Quit pulling on you mama's apron strings. 

You may have a man body, but you think like a little boy. Grow Up

Hope your son don't follow in your foot steps.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Bristol ...........   Levi did ............ Jimmy ..........
> 
> ..................



T_p does not speak for Bristol, and he does not speak for Levi, and he does not speak for the News reports, and he certainly does not speak for me.

So everything that I posted was accurate and true, while T_p is just doing childish games.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Geruch said:


> Children needs come first before our own.



That really is just some grand ideal that is not true and it is unrealistic, but it makes one to feel better when trumpeting such words.

The condition and status of the parents is the ultimate decisive factor in raising healthy children.

.


----------



## This_person

This_person said:


> Bristol did not decide not to marry, Levi did.
> 
> Bristol does not forgo her parental responsibilities, Levi does.
> 
> That makes Levi, per your definition, guilty of infidelity, twice.
> 
> The government has no business getting involved, per you, with marriage.  Therefore, it has no business telling people to get married.
> 
> The government does has an implicit responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves - like children from parents who will not support them.  Like you. Like Jimmy, Jr.  Like Levi.  And, therefore has a responsibility to protect this child of Levi's from Levi's failure to follow through on his own word to personally take responsibility for his own child.  The responsibility for Bristol's child falls on Bristol and Levi first, their families second, their extended families third, charitible organizations fourth, and involuntary charity like taxpayers fifth.



Jimmy,

If you have a news report that shows Bristol called off the wedding not Levi, please provide.

If you have a news report that shows Levi has actually properly provided for his child, please provide.

If you actually properly provided for your child, or Jimmy Jr his, please provide.

If you believe the government should not look out for those who cannot protect themselves, please explain why.

Otherwise, your most recent post in this thread is entirely inaccurate.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> That really is just some grand ideal that is not true and it is unrealistic,


When did you become the arbiter of truth, or reality for that matter?





> The condition and status of the parents is the ultimate decisive factor in raising healthy children.


Agreed.  So, each parent's capability of providing for his/her child, based on his/her status or condition should be the decisive factor in providing reasonably for their child.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> When did you become the arbiter of truth, or reality for that matter?



I have always been that on here since the first day that I registered on this forum.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I have always been that on here since the first day that I registered on this forum.


No wonder you hate being called out on your lies.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That really is just some grand ideal that is not true and it is unrealistic, but it makes one to feel better when trumpeting such words.
> 
> The condition and status of the parents is the ultimate decisive factor in raising healthy children.


Unrealistic to you. Your wacko man.

At least I was man enough to step up to the plate. 
You ran like a chicken and you can't be trusted.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



VoteJP said:


> *Levi Johnston to Pay Back Child Support to the rich Palin clan.*
> 
> An Alaskan judge has ordered Levi Johnston to pay 14 months of back child support for his son, Tripp, New York's Daily News reports.
> 
> A figure has not been determined yet, but Johnston's ex-fiancée, Bristol Palin, is asking for a retroactive total of $19,232 and a monthly sum of $1,700 going forward, according to the Daily News. Johnston, 19, had paid Palin $4,400 last year.
> 
> While Palin, 19, attended the Thursday court hearing, Johnston, who posed for Playgirl last month, was a no-show.
> 
> A trial is set for Sept. 23.  Link.
> 
> Second report showing they want to steal the child too = Bristol Palin seeks sole custody of son



So lets say that Levi Johnson is a fit and healthy example of a Dad, and as the reports imply then the father does want to raise his own son, and he is willing to marry the Mom Bristol, so then under this equation then the law is empowering the family break-up demands of the Palin family against the child's Dad.

By removing the cut-downs and petty insults against the Dad, then all that is left is family breakup demands and State laws that empower those immoral and anti-social demands.

If there were no Child Support and Custody laws then Bristol and her family would be far more inclined to seek a marriage to the Dad instead of just wanting to steal his money in Child Support - and steal the child from the father too.

By giving one parent "custody" and ordering Child Support from the other parent - that simply undermines and destroys the very idea of the two parents seeking marriage.

The two parents are young and healthy with no reports of abuse or impropriety - so then there is no ethical nor moral reason that they do not get married. And since they do NOT get married for whatever reason, then the law has no business giving power or legitimacy to their immorality and their wanton failure to get married and raise their child together.

It is the law itself that uses the name-calling and demonizing against the separated parents to justify the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.

The law and Courts need NEED to demonize the separated parent in order to justify the ignorant family break-down laws.

.


----------



## Cletus_Vandam

VoteJP said:


> So lets say that Levi Johnson is a fit and healthy example of a Dad, and as the reports imply then the father does want to raise his own son, and he is willing to marry the Mom Bristol, so then under this equation then the law is empowering the family break-up demands of the Palin family against the child's Dad.
> 
> By removing the cut-downs and petty insults against the Dad, then all that is left is family breakup demands and State laws that empower those immoral and anti-social demands.
> 
> If there were no Child Support and Custody laws then Bristol and her family would be far more inclined to seek a marriage to the Dad instead of just wanting to steal his money in Child Support - and steal the child from the father too.
> 
> By giving one parent "custody" and ordering Child Support from the other parent - that simply undermines and destroys the very idea of the two parents seeking marriage.
> 
> The two parents are young and healthy with no reports of abuse or impropriety - so then there is no ethical nor moral reason that they do not get married. And since they do NOT get married for whatever reason, then the law has no business giving power or legitimacy to their immorality and their wanton failure to get married and raise their child together.
> 
> It is the law itself that uses the name-calling and demonizing against the separated parents to justify the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> The law and Courts need NEED to demonize the separated parent in order to justify the ignorant family break-down laws.
> 
> .


 
You really need to get someone to read your post back to you.....  Child Support has nothing to do with forcing parties into divorce, breaking up a marriage, or anything to do with the actual parents who were in many cases immature children who should not be having sex in the first place.

Child Support is just that.  Support of the child that obviously cannot support itself.

The court's involvement in Child Support now or in the past would never be an issue if the parents we able to broker an arrangement between themselves.  This is rarely the case, but I know for a fact that some parents go on for their children's entire life without any court involvement.

However, the court's have to be brought into the picture when there is a dead-beat parent in the picture - something I'm sure you have had no experience with.

If the non-custodial parent can't afford the costs associated with raising a child [whether court ordered or not], then they need to get a second job, a third job, or whatever it takes.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



Cletus_Vandam said:


> If the non-custodial parent can't afford the costs associated with raising a child [whether court ordered or not], then they need to get a second job, a third job, or whatever it takes.



Instead of that they do have other options.

Like they could Vote for JP and I will reform the thieving system as Governor.

Or they could start spray-painting the thieving Child Support buildings.

Or do whatever resistance that seems expedient in fighting the thieves.

Link = Maryland Constitution - Declaration of Rights...Articles 1 and 6. 

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Instead of that they do have other options.
> 
> Or they could start spray-painting the thieving Child Support buildings.


Good to see you admit that you broke the law simply to get out of having to pay for your child.


----------



## Geruch

Cletus_Vandam said:


> You really need to get someone to read your post back to you.....  Child Support has nothing to do with forcing parties into divorce, breaking up a marriage, or anything to do with the actual parents who were in many cases immature children who should not be having sex in the first place.
> 
> Child Support is just that.  Support of the child that obviously cannot support itself.



Amen 

JP see things one way only. It's his way or No way.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Cletus_Vandam said:


> Child Support has nothing to do with forcing parties into divorce, breaking up a marriage, or anything to do with the actual parents ...



The laws encourages and empowers the relationship break-up by making it to look easy, comfortable, acceptable, legitimate, and that is a fairly hard push on marriages to breakup instead of reconcile.



Cletus_Vandam said:


> ... who were in many cases immature children who should not be having sex in the first place.


 
That is probably true for many parents, but having immature parents would mean that we treat them more gently and help them along instead of sending the young immature parents into the evil grinder of the legal system.

Shall we help them or punish them? and I say the punishing is a recipe for disaster which is already in process.



Cletus_Vandam said:


> Child Support is just that.  Support of the child that obviously cannot support itself.



That is the claim but it is not true.

The children have always since the beginning of humanity been supported by their parents, and the idiotic Child Support and Custody laws interfere with that human parenting.

The Child Support laws only punish parents, which then alienates the parents from their children.



Cletus_Vandam said:


> However, the court's have to be brought into the picture when there is a dead-beat parent in the picture - something I'm sure you have had no experience with.



There is no such thing as a "deadbeat parent" as that is just slander to demonize the separated parents to justify the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.

If we try helping the parents instead of trying to punish the parents then the children would be far better off.



Cletus_Vandam said:


> If the non-custodial parent can't afford the costs associated with raising a child [whether court ordered or not], then they need to get a second job, a third job, or whatever it takes.



The laws and the Courts have no business making such demands.

.


----------



## Pete

It seems your actual anger is at the system that allowed your ex wife to slip the noose of your insanity and force you to go away.  You would rather have been legally allowed to stay and torment her until her death.  A collateral benefit to not allowing your ex wife to cast you away would be that you would not be forced to share your beer money supporting your childs standard of living.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Pete said:


> It seems your actual anger is at the system that allowed your ex wife to slip the noose of your insanity and force you to go away.  You would rather have been legally allowed to stay and torment her until her death.  A collateral benefit to not allowing your ex wife to cast you away would be that you would not be forced to share your beer money supporting your childs standard of living.



Wow, my old friend Pete has come out to visit me - and I am surprised.

So I do not see how you can relate my platform as having some relation to my ex-wife.

Me and she separated some 28 years ago, and she has been dead for near 14 years, and my son is over 30 years old, so I do NOT have any self interest in reforming the Child Support and Custody laws except in helping to serve our society and our State.

I am angry at the system because it is unjust and destructive, and in my opinion the system is evil.

If I could return back in time, then I would want that my marriage and family to have remained intact and healthy.


.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Wow, my old friend Pete has come out to visit me - and I am surprised.
> 
> So I do not see how you can relate my platform as having some relation to my ex-wife.
> 
> Me and she separated some 28 years ago, and she has been dead for near 14 years, and my son is over 30 years old, so I do NOT have any self interest in reforming the Child Support and Custody laws except in helping to serve our society and our State.
> 
> I am angry at the system because it is unjust and destructive, and in my opinion the system is evil.
> 
> If I could return back in time, then I would want that my marriage and family to have remained intact and healthy.
> 
> 
> .





Wow it's been over 14 years and you are still angry and holding a grudge? Let it go


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Wow it's been over 14 years and you are still angry and holding a grudge? Let it go



I feel as though I must confess that I do hold a grudge and resentments over my own case, but I have no grudge against my ex-wife as I loved her and she still proves to be a great blessing to me today.

My own anger and resentment is totally directed at the laws and the Courts and the gov because of those family breakup laws and system.

In that regard I would like to reap justice for the past and for the present and put an end to the wrongs continuing into the future.

If I am forced to "let it go" then I would declare God as unjust.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> If I am forced to "let it go" then I would declare God as unjust.


You've repeatedly already done this, so....  let it go.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Wow it's been over 14 years and you are still angry and holding a grudge? Let it go



Thanks for the hug, but my way in this deal is to escalate the dispute, and then escalate my grievance even more so.

The way to fight injustice is to escalate the injustice, as like Jesus said to turn the other check and make the scoundrels smack it again and again.

It is a sound and sensible principle that requires a lot of self sacrifice.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> It is a sound and sensible principle that requires a lot of self sacrifice.


While you were hiding from the law, from your ex-wife, and from your son (not being there for him physically, financially, nor emotionally), what were YOU sacrificing?  What are you sacrificing now?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Thanks for the hug, but my way in this deal is to escalate the dispute, and then escalate my grievance even more so.
> 
> The way to fight injustice is to escalate the injustice, as like Jesus said to turn the other check and make the scoundrels smack it again and again.
> 
> It is a sound and sensible principle that requires a lot of self sacrifice.
> 
> .



What have you sacrificed? A PARENT sacrifices for their kids... a deadbeat doesn't sacrifice anything.


----------



## SoccerMom2

The Child Support laws only punish parents, which then alienates the parents from their children.

 There is no such thing as a "deadbeat parent" as that is just slander to demonize the separated parents to justify the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.

If we try helping the parents instead of trying to punish the parents then the children would be far better off.
.[/QUOTE]

 You are soooooooo stupid. Only person who gets punished is the child. A parent who does not support their child is a dead beat! A parent that does not support their child alienates themselves from their child. No law can do that. Child support is used when a person is already divorce/separated or your not married. You don't pay child support while your married. What do you call a parent (who is not married) that does not financially support their child in anyway? A parent who refuses to do anything for their child? What do you call them? I call them a dead beat parent or JPC!


----------



## SoccerMom2

VoteJP said:


> Thanks for the hug, but my way in this deal is to escalate the dispute, and then escalate my grievance even more so.
> 
> The way to fight injustice is to escalate the injustice, as like Jesus said to turn the other check and make the scoundrels smack it again and again.
> 
> It is a sound and sensible principle that requires a lot of self sacrifice.
> 
> .



Jesus would never walk away from his own child!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hvp05

SoccerMom2 said:


> What do you call a parent (who is not married) that does not financially support their child in anyway? A parent who refuses to do anything for their child? What do you call them?


He calls them non-existent, as he believes there are no deadbeats and the only reason parents run is because of CS 'violence' and 'threats'.  Despite his being shown countless examples to the contrary.

But he was a deadbeat as are all his friends, so no silly facts will stand in his way of excusing their actions.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> What have you sacrificed?



I am referring the the sacrifices in defying the unjust laws, and that means the sacrifices of going to jail and being slandered, being robbed, and such as that.



LusbyMom said:


> A PARENT sacrifices for their kids...



It is not a virtuous sacrifice to live off of stolen money.



LusbyMom said:


> a deadbeat doesn't sacrifice anything.



There are no deadbeat parents anywhere on the planet earth, as that is just slander to demonize the separated parents.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I am referring the the sacrifices in defying the unjust laws, and that means the sacrifices of going to jail and being slandered, being robbed, and such as that.


Going to jail is not "sacrifice" when you choose it, actively.

When you vandelized government property, did the police find you, or did you turn yourself in, begging to go to jail and therefore be out of touch with your son, and unable to pay any child support while incarcerated, all while not having to pay your own way?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> the sacrifices of going to jail and being slandered, being robbed, and such as that.


I like how you will at times reassert that your case is closed and has nothing to do with your current actions, while at other times you base everything you are doing on those same past actions.

And, as I said on another thread, and TP said below:  you ask for it.   :shrug:   Hard to feel sorry for someone who makes themself poor and incarcerated.



> It is not a virtuous sacrifice to live off of stolen money.


Your "disability" payments are paid out legally but are no more virtuous, yet you continue to accept them because you like to be a victim.  Does that make it okay?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> Going to jail is not "sacrifice" when you choose it, actively.



It is a true sacrifice ONLY only when one actively makes the choice and follows through with it.

There is some merit to involuntary sacrifice but not as much.

Remember that Jesus gave Himself to the cross.



This_person said:


> When you vandalized government property, did the police find you, or did you turn yourself in, begging to go to jail and therefore be out of touch with your son, and unable to pay any child support while incarcerated, all while not having to pay your own way?



Yes, I stayed at the crime scene and turned myself in on the first two (2) times, and I tried to do that on my third time of spray painting the State House but I waited and no one came so I walked away and was not arrested till a month later, and then I decided to force a jury trial to get myself a day in Court and it all went super well as I got the maximum of three years in prison at the last.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> I like how you will at times reassert that your case is closed and has nothing to do with your current actions, while at other times you base everything you are doing on those same past actions.



You are mixing the apples with the oranges - as the saying goes.

My own Child Support and my family is a different equation from my later years of defiance against the Child Support thievery.

I am against the law - and not against my own case.



hvp05 said:


> And, as I said on another thread, and TP said below:  you ask for it.   :shrug:   Hard to feel sorry for someone who makes themself poor and incarcerated.



Sorrow is neither requested nor wanted.

I am very happy and proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the Child Support thievery, and of my years as a political prisoner.

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> My own Child Support and my family is a different equation from my later years of defiance against the Child Support thievery.


Oh, so you believe that only certain parts of your past - whatever you deem acceptable and admirable - should be dredged up, while the rest is never to be spoken of again.  Gotcha.



> I am very happy and proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the Child Support thievery, and of my years as a political prisoner.


So why oppose throwing the rest of the losers into jail?  You should be happy to see them go, just as you were.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I am referring the the sacrifices in defying the unjust laws, and that means the sacrifices of going to jail and being slandered, being robbed, and such as that.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a virtuous sacrifice to live off of stolen money.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no deadbeat parents anywhere on the planet earth, as that is just slander to demonize the separated parents.
> 
> .



Who says the laws are unjust? YOU? A deadbeat! 

You just don't understand that the laws are only needed because the deadbeats have to be forced to support the children they created. 

There are deadbeat parents everywhere and that is fact and fact isn't slander. I am not a "separated" parent I am a DIVORCED parent. So because my ex and I couldn't have a good marriage my child lost the right to be supported by BOTH parents?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> It is a true sacrifice ONLY only when one actively makes the choice and follows through with it.
> 
> There is some merit to involuntary sacrifice but not as much.
> 
> Remember that Jesus gave Himself to the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I stayed at the crime scene and turned myself in on the first two (2) times, and I tried to do that on my third time of spray painting the State House but I waited and no one came so I walked away and was not arrested till a month later, and then I decided to force a jury trial to get myself a day in Court and it all went super well as I got the maximum of three years in prison at the last.
> 
> .


It's never a sacrifice when you force it to happen, with the goal of getting out of responsibility.

It IS a sacrifice when you give up something for others, not when you take something from some so you don't have to give to others.


----------



## Asmodeus

VoteJP said:


> Thanks for the hug, but my way in this deal is to escalate the dispute, and then escalate my grievance even more so.
> 
> The way to fight injustice is to escalate the injustice, as like Jesus said to turn the other check and make the scoundrels smack it again and again.
> 
> It is a sound and sensible principle that requires a lot of self sacrifice.
> 
> .



You are an ass.  When I split with my ex she got the kids at first.  MD wanted me to pay $1,000 a month support for 3 kids.  She was responsible for the remainder of expenses.  Knowing that $1,000 would only cover the cost of a 2bdrm apartment in Chuck County, I was paying $2400 per month instead.  Yeah, that meant I was completely broke and lucky to find someone who'd let me stay at their home.  I could barely put gas in the car to get to work and bummed rides when I could.  Sometimes I didn't eat.

I don't care if I would have had to take on more part-time work, whatever it would have taken to keep my kids safe, warm and fed.  People fall on hard times, but that is no excuse for letting children that you brought into this world down.  If you gotta shovel poo to provide for them, then start shoveling.  

There shouldn't have to be a law on child support.  A real man does the right thing anyway.


----------



## BigTwink

VoteJP said:


> So lets say that Levi Johnson is a fit and healthy example of a Dad, and as the reports imply then the father does want to raise his own son, and he is willing to marry the Mom Bristol, so then under this equation then the law is empowering the family break-up demands of the Palin family against the child's Dad.
> 
> By removing the cut-downs and petty insults against the Dad, then all that is left is family breakup demands and State laws that empower those immoral and anti-social demands.
> 
> If there were no Child Support and Custody laws then Bristol and her family would be far more inclined to seek a marriage to the Dad instead of just wanting to steal his money in Child Support - and steal the child from the father too.
> 
> By giving one parent "custody" and ordering Child Support from the other parent - that simply undermines and destroys the very idea of the two parents seeking marriage.
> 
> The two parents are young and healthy with no reports of abuse or impropriety - so then there is no ethical nor moral reason that they do not get married. And since they do NOT get married for whatever reason, then the law has no business giving power or legitimacy to their immorality and their wanton failure to get married and raise their child together.
> 
> It is the law itself that uses the name-calling and demonizing against the separated parents to justify the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> The law and Courts need NEED to demonize the separated parent in order to justify the ignorant family break-down laws.
> 
> .


Outstanding analogy!


----------



## Candy_Pickletoe

*JP CuSICK for Governor of Maryland*

JP is so out of touch with reality that the prospect of him being on the ticket makes my stomach turn. 

For your reading pleasure:
Sheriffs' dept pays child support...... - Baltimore Sun talk forum

Originally posted by VoteJP: (post #9)


> If it were myself then I would not be satisfied with the 95k$, and since the law will not prosecute that criminal Cop then the parent has every right to take the law into his own hands and strike back at his own convenience.
> 
> *If it was me then I would want to kill the Cop, and if I were him than that is what I would do in such a case.*
> 
> This is why we have a 2nd Amendment - so citizens can defend ourselves against gov criminals.


 Bold mine

and:

Originally posted by VoteJP: (post number 16)


> *So I say the Dad is fully justified to retaliate and kill them all if he can figure out a way to get it done.*
> 
> That parent has been legally violated and tortured and he has no legal recourse to seek justice, and so it is his right to employ the 2nd Amendment in this case.


 Bold mine

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, a candidate for the highest seat in Maryland encourages murder and passes the act of murder off as an acceptable form of exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Asmodeus said:


> You are an ass.  When I split with my ex she got the kids at first.  MD wanted me to pay $1,000 a month support for 3 kids.  She was responsible for the remainder of expenses.  Knowing that $1,000 would only cover the cost of a 2bdrm apartment in Chuck County, I was paying $2400 per month instead.  Yeah, that meant I was completely broke and lucky to find someone who'd let me stay at their home.  I could barely put gas in the car to get to work and bummed rides when I could.  Sometimes I didn't eat.
> 
> I don't care if I would have had to take on more part-time work, whatever it would have taken to keep my kids safe, warm and fed.  People fall on hard times, but that is no excuse for letting children that you brought into this world down.  If you gotta shovel poo to provide for them, then start shoveling.
> 
> There shouldn't have to be a law on child support.  A real man does the right thing anyway.



I truly do believe this literally and it does demonstrate many of my own points.

In that Custody is to mean providing the custody, and if the custodial can not afford the custody then they have no business having the care of children.

The Child Support is not meant to pay the custodial rent or other custodial duties because that is the job of custody.

Since you had the money then you were to be given the custody and not her but the law is not really about supporting children as it is about destroying families.

Many parents do as he describes above as they pay and pay and pay into absurd and ridiculous scenarios - and I have known of far worse stories than this one.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Who says the laws are unjust? YOU? A deadbeat!
> 
> You just don't understand that the laws are only needed because the deadbeats have to be forced to support the children they created.
> 
> There are deadbeat parents everywhere and that is fact and fact isn't slander. I am not a "separated" parent I am a DIVORCED parent. So because my ex and I couldn't have a good marriage my child lost the right to be supported by BOTH parents?



I do say that you drive home the point that the Child Support is not about supporting children but about punishing parents.

The name-calling and demonization simply must be done to justify the unjust and the idiotic violation of parents.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I do say that you drive home the point that the Child Support is not about supporting children but about punishing parents.
> 
> The name-calling and demonization simply must be done to justify the unjust and the idiotic violation of parents.
> 
> .



Of course it isn't about supporting the children  It's FREE to raise them.. everyone knows that.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Of course it isn't about supporting the children  It's FREE to raise them.. everyone knows that.



The children already have everything they need to overflowing, so they have housing and food and medical and schooling and they have everything already, so the Child Support is NOT about supporting the children.

It is ONLY as you posted - it is about attacking the "deadbeat" and forcing them to pay.

It is a "control issue" based on idiotic and unreal claims.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The children already have everything they need to overflowing, so they have housing and food and medical and schooling and they have everything already, so the Child Support is NOT about supporting the children.
> 
> It is ONLY as you posted - it is about attacking the "deadbeat" and forcing them to pay.
> 
> It is a "control issue" based on idiotic and unreal claims.
> 
> .



Since when is a house free? Since when is Food free? Since when is medical free? School is free to attend but it doesn't include the supplies and clothing needed to attend. 

What is this overflowing you talk about? What about the cost of sports and extra curriculars? Should they not do that either because one parent is to selfish to support the child? 

It is about forcing a parent to do his/her share to support the children they created. It's sad that a parent has to be forced to do what is right. A real man/woman would do it without being forced.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Since when is a house free? Since when is Food free? Since when is medical free? School is free to attend but it doesn't include the supplies and clothing needed to attend.



Those things are what is meant by supplying custody.

If one is not prepared to feed, house, clothe and provide medical needs, then they have no business having the custody of any child.

If one can not provide custody then they have no business with custody. 



LusbyMom said:


> What is this overflowing you talk about? What about the cost of sports and extra curriculars? Should they not do that either because one parent is to selfish to support the child?



It is extra curricular because those are unneeded luxuries.

And many parents are waking up to the evils in sports and the "extras" and it is wrong to force parents to pay to brainwash their own children.



LusbyMom said:


> It is about forcing a parent to do his/her share to support the children they created. It's sad that a parent has to be forced to do what is right. A real man/woman would do it without being forced.



You have no business "forcing" anybody, and especially no business forcing parents in their own parenting.

And the law has no business forcing parents in their parenting either.

That is why I told you in the last posting that it is a "control issue" because it is all in your perspective of trying to control others instead of controlling one self.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Those things are what is meant by supplying custody.
> 
> If one is not prepared to feed, house, clothe and provide medical needs, then they have no business having the custody of any child.
> 
> *If one can not provide custody then they have no business with custody.
> *
> 
> 
> It is extra curricular because those are unneeded luxuries.
> 
> And many parents are waking up to the evils in sports and the "extras" and it is wrong to force parents to pay to brainwash their own children.
> 
> 
> 
> *You have no business "forcing" anybody, and especially no business forcing parents in their own parenting.*
> 
> And the law has no business forcing parents in their parenting either.
> 
> That is why I told you in the last posting that it is a "control issue" because it is all in your perspective of trying to control others instead of controlling one self.
> 
> .



That's fine... so when the DEADBEAT doesn't support the children than the DEADBEAT can't have his visitation. Is that what you are saying? Because that is how I understand what you are saying.

And since I have no business forcing anybody than I won't force my child to go with the deadbeat who can't provide.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> And many parents are waking up to the evils in sports and the "extras" and it is wrong to force parents to pay to brainwash their own children.


Soccer and karate classes are tools for 'the man' to brainwash kids.  Who knew?  (Besides Jimmy the Oracle, of course.)


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> That's fine... so when the DEADBEAT doesn't support the children than the DEADBEAT can't have his visitation. Is that what you are saying? Because that is how I understand what you are saying.
> 
> And since I have no business forcing anybody than I won't force my child to go with the deadbeat who can't provide.



A lot of custodial parents are that way of alienating the separated parent from their child, and it hurts both the child and their separated parent.

Many custodial parents do that even when the Child Support does get paid.

I see it as a sin, as in Jesus said not to separate what God has joined, because the child and their parents are joined by God.

It is wrong, and it is God that will punish those that do such things.


.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> A lot of custodial parents are that way of alienating the separated parent from their child, and it hurts both the child and their separated parent.
> 
> Many custodial parents do that even when the Child Support does get paid.
> 
> I see it as a sin, as in Jesus said not to separate what God has joined, because the child and their parents are joined by God.
> 
> It is wrong, and it is God that will punish those that do such things.



That's fine for those of us who believe  in God.  However, I believe it is appropriate to render unto the government that which is the government's - and the authority to protect the child, the parent with physical placement, and the parent without physical placement all as a role of the government since the government was asked into the relationship via a marriage license and/or child support enforcement act.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> A lot of custodial parents are that way of alienating the separated parent from their child, and it hurts both the child and their separated parent.
> 
> Many custodial parents do that even when the Child Support does get paid.
> 
> I see it as a sin, as in Jesus said not to separate what God has joined, because the child and their parents are joined by God.
> 
> It is wrong, and it is God that will punish those that do such things.
> 
> 
> .



So you contradict yourself? Because you said if a parent can't provide for the child than they shouldn't have the child. So if a parent isn't providing then why should the parent get to see the child? 

Don't worry.. GOD will punish you for all your sins.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> So you contradict yourself? Because you said if a parent can't provide for the child than they shouldn't have the child. So if a parent isn't providing then why should the parent get to see the child?



I must confess that is a really smart and clever posting, and it proves that you are indeed a very intelligent person, and I give my compliments for that.

But it also shows you as belligerent and cold and a really mean person too.

Using the children as a weapon is stooping really low.



LusbyMom said:


> Don't worry.. GOD will punish you for all your sins.



Yes, I have been punished before, and I still suffer punishments today, and I expect to share my future punishments with other sinners too.

God's punishments are to teach and to convert people as like a loving Father God does to His beloved children.

Mankind punishes with violence, while it is a blessing to be punished by the God of justice.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I must confess that is a really smart and clever posting, and it proves that you are indeed a very intelligent person, and I give my compliments for that.
> 
> But it also shows you as belligerent and cold and a really mean person too.
> 
> Using the children as a weapon is stooping really low.





Now, that's funny.  You get caught in your own lunacy, so you choose to attack the person who calls you on it instead of saying, "hey, you're right and I'm wrong.  Maybe I need to rethink my position".

You are correct to run on the Dem party.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I must confess that is a really smart and clever posting, and it proves that you are indeed a very intelligent person, and I give my compliments for that.
> 
> *But it also shows you as belligerent and cold and a really mean person too.
> 
> Using the children as a weapon is stooping really low.
> *
> 
> 
> Yes, I have been punished before, and I still suffer punishments today, and I expect to share my future punishments with other sinners too.
> 
> God's punishments are to teach and to convert people as like a loving Father God does to His beloved children.
> 
> Mankind punishes with violence, while it is a blessing to be punished by the God of justice.
> 
> .



Actually you are wrong about me. My ex does not support my child but gets every single minute that he is suppose to. Child support and Visitation are two different issues. Unfortunately he cares as much about spending time with the kid as he does about child support.. so basically not at all. My fault? Nope each of us are responsible for our own actions.


----------



## BigTwink

This_person said:


> Now, that's funny.  You get caught in your own lunacy, so you choose to attack the person who calls you on it instead of saying, "hey, you're right and I'm wrong.  Maybe I need to rethink my position".
> 
> You are correct to run on the Dem party.



Why do you hate Democrats?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Yes, I have been punished before, and I still suffer punishments today


You surely will continue to suffer as long as you continue to act like a jerk and work against children.  Why you can not admit that your myriad truckload of failures are all signs (from God or whatever source you wish to attribute them) that you should be quiet and keep your demented thoughts to yourself is beyond me.

But hey, if you want to keep on believin', go ahead... and make room on your resumé for yet another failure because you can bet it's coming.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Actually you are wrong about me.



No, I do believe I am totally correct about your character.

Maybe you have real justification for being so bitter and cruel? but it is still wrong.



LusbyMom said:


> My ex does not support my child but gets every single minute that he is suppose to.



It is NOT your child, and the laws of custody makes one think they own the children but the laws are sinful and immoral, and you under the law have stolen the child from their Dad.

It is a wrong done to the Dad and to the child and to society.



LusbyMom said:


> Child support and Visitation are two different issues.



Different issues perhaps - but they are two sides to the same sword that cuts both ways.

The visits are dependent on paying the thieving Child Support, and visitations are denied whether the thievery is paid or not.



LusbyMom said:


> Unfortunately he cares as much about spending time with the kid as he does about child support.. so basically not at all.



You speak in your own cold-hearted terms about the Dad, and your cold heart is dead wrong.

The thieving Child Support has absolutely nothing to do with a parent's regard for their own children.



LusbyMom said:


> My fault?



Yes, it is your fault because you have the "custody" which means you are the receiver of a stolen child and stolen Child Support and that doe makes it your fault.

The laws and Courts certainly are far more wrong and evil then that of the custodial parents, but the custodial parents are at fault when they hide behind those unjust laws.



LusbyMom said:


> Nope each of us are responsible for our own actions.



Having "Custody" makes it your job to see to it that the child(ren) have all that the child needs, and in every case the child's most important need is in having a healthy and functioning relationship with their other parent.

It is up to the custodial to teach the child(ren) to honor both their father and their mother, and if one or both of their parents are separated or absent then the children are to be taught their duty anyway of honoring their real parent(s) and if they do not - then that is a failure of custody.

.


----------



## hvp05

*Only 3 months, 3 days...*

Until the anniversary of President Clinton's signing of the Deadbeat Parents' Punishment Act of 1998.  (In the article's photo, notice who is behind Clinton smiling... it's Southern MD's own Rep. Hoyer.)



			
				Clinton said:
			
		

> The quiet crisis of unpaid child support is something that our country and our families shouldn't tolerate.  Our first responsibility, all of us, is to our children.  *And today we all know that too many parents still walk away from that obligation. That threatens the education, the health of our children and the future of our country.*
> 
> One of the main reasons single mothers go on welfare is that fathers have failed to meet their responsibilities to the children.  Even when a family manages to stay out of poverty a father's failure to pay child support puts mothers who are raising children by themselves under terrible pressure.  A lot of women are forced to work two jobs, to work at night or simply to worry sick about their children either because they're away from them all the time or because they're with them but they don't have enough to support them.


He did make a good point about mothers working multiple jobs - the more time they spend working means less quality time with the child[ren].  Clinton may not have seen reality clearly all the time, but he did on that point - unlike Jimmy, who thinks parents have unlimited hours every day to work and take care of the kids, amongst taking care of their own needs.

I think when 24 June comes around we ought to have a little celebration for this Act... in Jimmy's honor.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Until the anniversary of President Clinton's signing of the Deadbeat Parents' Punishment Act of 1998.  (In the article's photo, notice who is behind Clinton smiling... it's Southern MD's own Rep. Hoyer.)
> 
> He did make a good point about mothers working multiple jobs - the more time they spend working means less quality time with the child[ren].  Clinton may not have seen reality clearly all the time, but he did on that point - unlike Jimmy, who thinks parents have unlimited hours every day to work and take care of the kids, amongst taking care of their own needs.
> 
> I think when 24 June comes around we ought to have a little celebration for this Act... in Jimmy's honor.



I really believe that Clinton signed that law with me myself as a big influence on him, because at that time and before I had sent him letters and letters to all the Congress representatives and to News sources across the USA and beyond. So Clinton read some of my stuff.

We also might recall that Bill Clinton is the product of a twisted family himself as his mother stole his identity from his real father, and his real father was insulted and degraded ever after, and he was raised by a fake "Dad" and given his fake name of Clinton too, link.

As to that Clinton law it is significant that it is called by the slander of "deadbeat" and that it says it is for "punishment" and it is not about providing or supporting children, but only about attacking and demonizing the parents.

So my own perspective is that I see myself as the modern day "Jonah the prophet" in that I preach the message for repentance when I would prefer that instead we reap the punishments of God.

It is like to destroy a drunk is just to give them more booze, or to a druggie give them more narcotics, because then the people destroy themselves.

As it is in the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws, in that the law Clinton signed is even now undermining and destroying the fabric of our society like a mental sickness or an addiction disease which is totally self inflicted. 

Our ignorant society keeps trying to control parents and dictate over children and violate families and the system is already succeeding in destroying the social structure based on the idiotic beliefs and so be it.

So I myself just gives the witness and testimony and the option to do some thing to stop the destruction, and if it is rejected then I hope I live long enough to see it fall apart in the rightful disgrace and destruction which it deserves.

.


----------



## This_person

BigTwink said:


> Why do you hate Democrats?



I don't.  I just know that Jimmy represents the rank and file Democrat's point of view very well - "gimme gimme gimme but don't take from me", and "it doesn't matter what reality is, only what _*I*_ think."


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> No, I do believe I am totally correct about your character.
> 
> Maybe you have real justification for being so bitter and cruel? but it is still wrong.
> As if your opinion of me really matters, you are a deadbeat and a criminal
> 
> 
> It is NOT your child, and the laws of custody makes one think they own the children but the laws are sinful and immoral, and you under the law have stolen the child from their Dad.
> 
> It is a wrong done to the Dad and to the child and to society.
> 
> Actually it is MY CHILD. I am the one who does EVERYTHING for my child.
> 
> Different issues perhaps - but they are two sides to the same sword that cuts both ways.
> 
> The visits are dependent on paying the thieving Child Support, and visitations are denied whether the thievery is paid or not.
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where I said he doesn't pay a dime and still gets his visitation? The visits are NOT dependent on him paying.
> 
> You speak in your own cold-hearted terms about the Dad, and your cold heart is dead wrong.
> If I speak in cold hearted terms it could be because he treats my kid like ####. When you see your child hurt time and time again that  tends to happen.
> 
> 
> The thieving Child Support has absolutely nothing to do with a parent's regard for their own children.
> I wouldn't neccesarily say that. The parent is ticked they have to pay and some take it out on the children
> 
> 
> Yes, it is your fault because you have the "custody" which means you are the receiver of a stolen child and stolen Child Support and that doe makes it your fault.
> Wanna know why I have sole custody? I have it because he didn't want it. Kinda like you, you didn't want your kid and you split.
> 
> The laws and Courts certainly are far more wrong and evil then that of the custodial parents, but the custodial parents are at fault when they hide behind those unjust laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Having "Custody" makes it your job to see to it that the child(ren) have all that the child needs, and in every case the child's most important need is in having a healthy and functioning relationship with their other parent.
> 
> It is up to the custodial to teach the child(ren) to honor both their father and their mother, and if one or both of their parents are separated or absent then the children are to be taught their duty anyway of honoring their real parent(s) and if they do not - then that is a failure of custody.
> 
> .I provide everything physically, emotionally and financially.  Honor and respect are earned. How could your ex make sure you had a healthy and functioning relationship with your son when you took off to another state? Should she have flown all over trying to track you down so that you could bond with your kid?
> 
> 
> 
> .


----------



## Geruch

*Vote NO to J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*

VoteJP = JPC sr, Why you did you change your user name? Just wondering 

After reading I see that your still singing the same old tune. 

Your only seeing things one way. Your Way


----------



## Geruch

*VOTE NO, J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Candy_Pickletoe said:


> JP is so out of touch with reality that the prospect of him being on the ticket makes my stomach turn.
> 
> For your reading pleasure:
> Sheriffs' dept pays child support...... - Baltimore Sun talk forum
> 
> Originally posted by VoteJP: (post #9)
> 
> 
> 
> If it were myself then I would not be satisfied with the 95k$, and since the law will not prosecute that criminal Cop then the parent has every right to take the law into his own hands and strike back at his own convenience.
> 
> *If it was me then I would want to kill the Cop, and if I were him than that is what I would do in such a case.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine
> 
> and:
> 
> Originally posted by VoteJP: (post number 16)
> 
> 
> 
> *So I say the Dad is fully justified to retaliate and kill them all if he can figure out a way to get it done.*
> 
> That parent has been legally violated and tortured and he has no legal recourse to seek justice, and so it is his right to employ the 2nd Amendment in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bold mine
> 
> There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, a candidate for the highest seat in Maryland encourages murder and passes the act of murder off as an acceptable form of exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.
Click to expand...


WOW, So this is the kind of person trying to run for Maryland.
James P. Cusick goes to the extent of telling someone to kill a officer.
So you would tell Anthony McCory to murder someone and call that justice. Your Crazy 

Looks like Anthony McCoy settle it out of court. He handle it like a most adults would.

JP Cusick if that's how you think. Your not mentally fit to be Governor of Maryland.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



LusbyMom said:


>



The vast majority of Men do not fight back against Women, or else the Men put up a show to sooth the Woman.

The idea of "chivalry" is that we let the Women succeed and even to win as that is to make them happy. 

Naturally when the mother wants to take the children then they do take custody and they do not need any authority or "rubber stamping" from any Court. When the Mom refuses visitation or denies the father to the children then that is what happens regardless of whatever any Court orders. When the mother demands cash money from the Dad then the Man has no acceptable way of denying the woman.

In every relationship the Woman has the ability and the power to demand morality or to create sin from their Man, and the Courts violate that process.

Of course Men and fathers have their own position and power which is far different in such cases.

So your own situation is created and dominated by your own dictates whether the children have a healthy and functional relationship with their Dad or not.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*John Wayne + Rooster Cogburn + VoteJP = true grit.*



Geruch said:


> VoteJP = JPC sr, Why you did you change your user name? Just wondering
> 
> After reading I see that your still singing the same old tune.
> 
> Your only seeing things one way. Your Way



I change my registration user name because they represent different perspectives.

As in my last user name was for my campaign for the US Congress 5th District in 2008.

The user name prior to that was in my campaign for the Maryland Legislature 29B in 2006.

And now it is my campaign for Governor of Maryland 2010.

Since I use my real name and identification on the forums, and I am actually doing some real activity and not just posting rhetoric as an anonymous poster - then I need to change my registration to keep each of my efforts separate from each other.

That is why.

And I preach my way because I believe in my way and I intend to lead and to serve in my way. In the first campaign I was very inexperienced and less confident but now I feel much better about this campaign.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The vast majority of Men do not fight back against Women, or else the Men put up a show to sooth the Woman.
> 
> The idea of "chivalry" is that we let the Women succeed and even to win as that is to make them happy.
> 
> Naturally when the mother wants to take the children then they do take custody and they do not need any authority or "rubber stamping" from any Court. When the Mom refuses visitation or denies the father to the children then that is what happens regardless of whatever any Court orders. When the mother demands cash money from the Dad then the Man has no acceptable way of denying the woman.
> 
> In every relationship the Woman has the ability and the power to demand morality or to create sin from their Man, and the Courts violate that process.
> 
> Of course Men and fathers have their own position and power which is far different in such cases.
> 
> So your own situation is created and dominated by your own dictates whether the children have a healthy and functional relationship with their Dad or not.
> 
> .



 Sounds like the men you speak of need to grow some balls.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> So your own situation is created and dominated by your own dictates whether the children have a healthy and functional relationship with their Dad or not.


So, you're saying a father can have a relationship with his kids regardless of the mother's actions.

Very good.  Directly refutes your belief that paying child support automatically creates a situation where the father has no ability to have a relationship with his kids, and directly refutes your statements saying that the mother is responsible for the relationship of the kids with the father (but then again most of what you say is so outlandishly ignorant and biased it's hard NOT to refute it any of the rare times you speak sanely).


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Sounds like the men you speak of need to grow some balls.



I do know that many Women view it as like that, but going to Court to affront the father of your child is NOT an act of strength or honor.

The Women do not have the healthy self-esteem and so they esteem the Courts as a superior Judge, while Men view the Courts as an unworthy outsider. 

The vast majority of Men and fathers simply do not cooperate and many do not even participate or the Men give a passive defense to their Woman.

Women think they win when in fact they are just being cold-hearted and cruel. 

The Men being passive with the Women is not something new as it has always been this way in humanity because there is no honor in fighting against a female - especially when she is the mother of their children, but now we have Courts and laws that violate the Man and Woman relationships and thereafter the relationship no longer functions correctly because the law and the Courts do not belong in such personal business.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I do know that many Women view it as like that, but going to Court to affront the father of your child is NOT an act of strength or honor.
> 
> The Women do not have the healthy self-esteem and so they esteem the Courts as a superior Judge, while Men view the Courts as an unworthy outsider.
> 
> The vast majority of Men and fathers simply do not cooperate and many do not even participate or the Men give a passive defense to their Woman.
> 
> Women think they win when in fact they are just being cold-hearted and cruel.
> 
> The Men being passive with the Women is not something new as it has always been this way in humanity because there is no honor in fighting against a female - especially when she is the mother of their children, but now we have Courts and laws that violate the Man and Woman relationships and thereafter the relationship no longer functions correctly because the law and the Courts do not belong in such personal business.


Instead of attacking the women's self-esteem and morality; and attacking the men's ability to stand for themselves, why not try and discuss your issue from the point of view of legality.

Do you feel it is legally responsible of the government to look out for the child?  For the parent with physical placement?  For the parent without physical placement?  For the taxpayer to not have to support any of these people?


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



This_person said:


> why not try and discuss your issue from the point of view of legality.



I have always and repeatedly declared the legalities, in that the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws need to be reformed. 

And happy to do so again and again. 



This_person said:


> Do you feel it is legally responsible of the government to look out for the child?



The parents are responsible for their own children and NOT the gov.



This_person said:


> For the taxpayer to not have to support any of these people?



The taxes are used to support people that qualify for assistance and rightly so, but it is NOT taxpayers doing anything.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I have always and repeatedly declared the legalities, in that the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws need to be reformed.
> 
> And happy to do so again and again.
> 
> 
> 
> The parents are responsible for their own children and NOT the gov.
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes are used to support people that qualify for assistance and rightly so, but it is NOT taxpayers doing anything.
> 
> .



The laws are ignorant.. You don't pay your child support your ass goes to jail.  It should be that simple. Don't waste the taxpayers money with one court date after another. I can bet you many of them would suddenly be able to pay if it meant keeping them out of jail

I have sat in court on a child support day and watched the deadbeats walk in with their nice brand new clothes and gold hanging off their necks crying the blues they can't support their kid. Or how they say they have been looking for a job for 2 years and can't find one.. sorry McDonalds is always hiring. It's even better when their pregnant wife/gf is there with them to offer moral support. Seriously? He's a deadbeat and when he dumps your ass he won't support your kid either.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The taxes are used to support people that qualify for assistance and rightly so, but it is NOT taxpayers doing anything.


Dur... what is it you believe taxpayers do if it is not pay taxes?   

You Lefties have such odd views of the way government works.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The parents are responsible for their own children and NOT the gov.


I agree.  Too bad many parents (say, YOU for example, or your son) don't agree with their actions, just their words.





> The taxes are used to support people that qualify for assistance and rightly so, but it is NOT taxpayers doing anything.


Actually, (and I know you wouldn't understand this, being a parasite on society and all) taxpayers actually do something.  They PAY taxes.  And, for the most part, they have to WORK to do that.  So, the more they pay, the less of the fruits of their own labors they get.  And, the more money paid to assistance to people who could do for themselves (say, to support a child whose parent does not support him, like little Jimmy Jr) the less money there is to support things like police, paid fire fighters and ambulance drivers so that we can have professionals instead of people doing it as a hobby, road maintenance, bridge repair, park upkeep.......


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> The laws are ignorant.. You don't pay your child support your ass goes to jail.  It should be that simple. Don't waste the taxpayers money with one court date after another.



For you to have such an awful belief is insignificant, but to have State laws that empower and enforce that kind of ignorance is reprehensible.

The jails and the Courts are meant to be for violent criminals and not as Parenting police and as thieves.



LusbyMom said:


> I can bet you many of them would suddenly be able to pay if it meant keeping them out of jail



That already happens now, and that is why only the poorest of parents go to jail because others pay the Child Support thieves.

Only dead-broke parents go to jail.

Often those that do pay get the Child Support ransom paid by family members or friends just as it always worked in the older style of Debtor's Prison.

And by so abusing the child's separated parent then it hurts the children too, and by so harming that parent's extended family then it is hurting the same child's extended family too.

So the stealing does work in many cases, but it makes the law into thieves and violators of families. 



LusbyMom said:


> I have sat in court on a child support day and watched the deadbeats walk in with their nice brand new clothes and gold hanging off their necks crying the blues they can't support their kid. Or how they say they have been looking for a job for 2 years and can't find one.. sorry McDonald's is always hiring. It's even better when their pregnant wife/gf is there with them to offer moral support. Seriously? He's a deadbeat and when he dumps your ass he won't support your kid either.



I have been to many of those Court hearing too, except I believe what those parents say to the Courts.

Your perception is simply cold-hearted and cruel.

Those parents are the honest and trusting parents that actually go to the unjust Courts, and if they listened to my suggestions then they would stop pleading to the thieves. 

.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



hvp05 said:


> Dur... what is it you believe taxpayers do if it is not pay taxes?



That is all they do is pay taxes.

If one thinks they are helping people on Welfare because one pays their taxes then that is nonsense, especially for such selfish and ignorant persons that denounce the Welfare system.

I would say that all of your tax dollars have all gone just to killing innocent Muslims on the other side of the planet because that is what you cheer on.

We do not have a full or true democracy where citizen taxpayers vote on given expenditures, so paying taxes does not mean that one pays for the gov services.

.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Your perception is simply cold-hearted and cruel.
> 
> 
> 
> .


 I have to agree, asking someone to contribute financially to something that they are seriously against contributing to is the ultimate insult. There is no way anyone other than a total societal leach could ever ask for or accept money that was not given freely by the person contributing.
 Even if that expense was created by their own doing.


 By the way JPC, you feel pretty good about using taxpayer dollar to live on while you refuse to support yourself? You do understand that the majority of contributors to the system would rather see you either work or starve.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> That is all they do is pay taxes.
> 
> If one thinks they are helping people on Welfare because one pays their taxes then that is nonsense, especially for such selfish and ignorant persons that denounce the Welfare system.
> 
> We do not have a full or true democracy where citizen taxpayers vote on given expenditures, so paying taxes does not mean that one pays for the gov services.


If we taxpayers did not pay our taxes, from where would you parasites get your income?

It is appropriate for you to refer to taxpayers as "them", and for you to have an "us vs. them" attitude.  Keep biting the hand that feeds you, Jimmy.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



bcp said:


> I have to agree, asking someone to contribute financially to something that they are seriously against contributing to is the ultimate insult. There is no way anyone other than a total societal leach could ever ask for or accept money that was not given freely by the person contributing.
> Even if that expense was created by their own doing.



It is true that when I become the Governor then I will bring dignity back to the custodial parents.

 .


----------



## Taeobi

For the parents that can not afford their child support, can't they file something to have it adjusted to fit their income, if it has changed? So if someone who isn't a deadbeat parent, but really struggling could have the support amended until they got back on their feet or whatever... Just sayin'


----------



## Geruch

Taeobi said:


> For the parents that can not afford their child support, can't they file something to have it adjusted to fit their income, if it has changed? So if someone who isn't a deadbeat parent, but really struggling could have the support amended until they got back on their feet or whatever... Just sayin'



Yes it's called, Modified Earnings Withholding Order

I think part of the problem is that when "some" non custodial parents move around.
It's hard to locate them especialy when they don't leave a forwarding address and
when they cross state lines.


----------



## Taeobi

Geruch said:


> Yes it's called, Modified Earnings Withholding Order
> 
> I think part of the problem is that when "some" non custodial parents move around.
> It's hard to locate them especialy when they don't leave a forwarding address and
> when they cross state lines.



Well when they don't do that, they should be considered "deadbeat", held accountable, and given the proper punishment once found. Because any stand up parent would be willing to help out financially and if they moved, they would notify whoever necessary to continue support for their child.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Only dead-broke parents go to jail.


Not 100% true.

I know of someone that worked but yet decided not to pay it. 
The child support amount was only $27 per week back in 1999.
In 2001 since the person wouldn't pay $27 per week. He got behind
so that added a extra $ 35.50. Making the child support $ 62.50 per week.

Paying an additional $35.50 per week towards the arrears in this case which are hereby 
established at $700.53 as of May 4 2001. That's like going 26 weeks without paying child support. 

That case does get worse as the time the years go by.

Take a look: Joseph W. Tibbs Jr. - Washington County - Case # 21C95049133
Maryland Judiciary Case Search

I could show you some more non custodial parents that was working but they just didn't want to pay child support.


----------



## Geruch

Taeobi said:


> Well when they don't do that, they should be considered "deadbeat", held accountable, and given the proper punishment once found. Because any stand up parent would be willing to help out financially and if they moved, they would notify whoever necessary to continue support for their child.



I think some non custodial parent they just don't want to pay it. No matter what.
Because they look at it like, "I'm not giving that B*tch any money." You know what I'm saying? 
Some don't see it as helping the children. They think it's going to the Custodial parent to spend on 
whatever they feel like. As if their not spending any of it on the children.


----------



## Taeobi

Geruch said:


> I think some non custodial parent they just don't want to pay it. No matter what.
> Because they look at it like, "I'm not giving that B*tch any money." You know what I'm saying?
> Some don't see it as helping the children. They think it's going to the Custodial parent to spend on
> whatever they feel like. As if their not spending any of it on the children.



Yeah, I know exactly what you are saying. In some cases that is true, the custodial parent is spending it on stuff that has nothing to do with taking care of the child. But then again... you shouldn't have messed around with such a crummy person in the first place. Just sayin' Give a lot of parents who do good and don't take advantage, a bad name...

Either way, I think people should really know someone before they think about getting intimate, that way they have a better chance of not getting stuck with a whack job for the rest of their life, if a child comes from it. MOO


----------



## Geruch

Taeobi said:


> Yeah, I know exactly what you are saying. In some cases that is true, the custodial parent is spending it on stuff that has nothing to do with taking care of the child. But then again... you shouldn't have messed around with such a crummy person in the first place. Just sayin' Give a lot of parents who do good and don't take advantage, a bad name...
> 
> Either way, I think people should really know someone before they think about getting intimate, that way they have a better chance of not getting stuck with a whack job for the rest of their life, if a child comes from it. MOO


No need to put everyone in one basket. 

Eye sight is 20/20 and Love is blind. Just when you think you know that person.
Sometimes you find out. You really didn't know them at all. That happens.

I think a lot of non-custodial parents do pay child support. Maybe not always on time but they do. 

I thought I knew my ex wife after 12 years. Thought I was going to be married until I died. 
She got involve with someone else and cheated. I just couldn't forgive her. But anyhow, 
I pay the child support and I have visitation. Not what I thought my life would end up like this.

A man should take care of his children. There only children for a little while. My ex might of not thought I was a good husband. But hey, I rather have my children remember that I was a good father, not a father that was never around.


----------



## Taeobi

Geruch said:


> No need to put everyone in one basket.
> 
> Eye sight is 20/20 and Love is blind. Just when you think you know that person.
> Sometimes you find out. You really didn't know them at all. That happens.
> 
> I think a lot of non-custodial parents do pay child support. Maybe not always on time but they do.
> 
> I thought I knew my ex wife after 12 years. Thought I was going to be married until I died.
> She got involve with someone else and cheated. I just couldn't forgive her. But anyhow,
> I pay the child support and I have visitation. Not what I thought my life would end up like this.
> 
> A man should take care of his children. There only children for a little while. My ex might of not thought I was a good husband. But hey, I rather have my children remember that I was a good father, not a father that was never around.



That's awesome you continue to do the right thing and your children will know you were a good father!! So many people--more than I thought--get so caught up in the anger and such, that they do things to spite their other halves. In the end the kids are the ones who end up losing out. 

I wasn't trying to put everyone in one basket. I do recognize that there are many different situations. Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound like that.


----------



## Geruch

Taeobi said:


> That's awesome you continue to do the right thing and your children will know you were a good father!! So many people--more than I thought--get so caught up in the anger and such, that they do things to spite their other halves. In the end the kids are the ones who end up losing out.
> 
> I wasn't trying to put everyone in one basket. I do recognize that there are many different situations. Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound like that.



To be honest, I was angry for awhile. After all my ex cheated on me. 
I be lying if I said I wasn't angry or hurt at all. 

I knew it wasn't my children fault things happen the way it did. No matter
what anyone said about me. My children will figure out what the truth is. 
I try very hard not to bring up the ex when I'm with them. It's hard
sometimes, you know. Especially when sometimes they act like her.

No need to put everyone in one basket, lol 
^ It was meant as a  Just kidding. I got the wrong sign up. Sorry


----------



## Taeobi

Geruch said:


> To be honest, I was angry for awhile. After all my ex cheated on me.
> I be lying if I said I wasn't angry or hurt at all.
> 
> I knew it wasn't my children fault things happen the way it did. No matter
> what anyone said about me. My children will figure out what the truth is.
> I try very hard not to bring up the ex when I'm with them. It's hard
> sometimes, you know. Especially when sometimes they act like her.
> 
> No need to put everyone in one basket, lol
> ^ It was meant as a  Just kidding. I got the wrong sign up. Sorry



I think anyone would be angry/hurt in that situation, with the betrayal alone. Especially after as long as you said you two were together. I hope it didn't scar you to the point of no return. Some people, after going through similar things, will close themselves off. 

You are right, they will see what the truth is. And good for you, for not bringing up the ex while with them... even when they act like her. That could be soooo hard to do.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Taeobi said:


> For the parents that can not afford their child support, can't they file something to have it adjusted to fit their income, if it has changed? So if someone who isn't a deadbeat parent, but really struggling could have the support amended until they got back on their feet or whatever... Just sayin'





Geruch said:


> Yes it's called, Modified Earnings Withholding Order



The laws say that a parent can modify the Child Support order, but they insult and degrade the parents just for trying to lower the payments, and the Courts often refuse to lower the amount, and even when it is lowered it is still just stealing the parents livelihood. 

The entire system is a fraud, just as Child Support in its essence is evil.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The entire system is a fraud, just as Child Support in its essence is evil.


You actually said something true - those two ideas are equally (in)valid!

good job, Jimmy


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Geruch said:


> Not 100% true.
> 
> I know of someone that worked but yet decided not to pay it.
> The child support amount was only $27 per week back in 1999.
> In 2001 since the person wouldn't pay $27 per week. He got behind
> so that added a extra $ 35.50. Making the child support $ 62.50 per week.
> 
> Paying an additional $35.50 per week towards the arrears in this case which are hereby established at $700.53 as of May 4 2001. That's like going 26 weeks without paying child support.
> 
> That case does get worse as the time the years go by.
> 
> Take a look: Joseph W. Tibbs Jr. - Washington County - Case # 21C95049133
> Maryland Judiciary Case Search
> 
> I could show you some more non custodial parents that was working but they just didn't want to pay child support.



 That is what I mean by a dead-broke parent, and only dead-broke parents go to jail.

The father being ordered to pay $27 means he was broke, because $27 per week is nothing and he needed to pay his own rent and food and clothing and more and to order a parent to pay $27 means the law is just ripping off a dead broke parent.

And then they demand $35 on top of that, as if a parent is too poor to pay the $27 that they more than double the order to $62 and $62 still means the father is dirt poor and broke. 

Now you and the law claims the father "did not want to pay it" and I would say not, he could not afford to pay it.

At $62 per week means the father must have been homeless or else living in a shelter or off of the charity of his family or friends.

It gets to me that you all are such damned dirty thieves.

And I simply must point out that we do not need to know the custodial or the child to know that the child had everything the child needed including housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, and more to overflowing, and that is a fact unless the child was being abused or neglected by the custodial.

So the laws steals from parents that have little to nothing, and put the dead-broke parents into jail, and the custodial and child has no needs unfilled, and such is the law of our ignorant people.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> And I simply must point out that we do not need to know the custodial or the child to know that the child had everything the child needed including housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, and more to overflowing, and that is a fact unless the child was being abused or neglected by the custodial.


If it's not being provided by both parents (but by ANYONE other than both parents) when both parents are capable of providing, then the child is being neglected by the parent not helping to provide for the child.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> The laws say that a parent can modify the Child Support order, but they insult and degrade the parents just for trying to lower the payments, and the Courts often refuse to lower the amount, and even when it is lowered it is still just stealing the parents livelihood.
> 
> The entire system is a fraud, just as Child Support in its essence is evil.
> 
> .



WOW, everything you are saying is a huge insult to every person that is receiving child support for JUSTIFIED reasons. Your view on this is very distorted in MOO.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Taeobi said:


> WOW, everything you are saying is a huge insult to every person that is receiving child support for JUSTIFIED reasons. Your view on this is very distorted in MOO.



There really is no "justifiable" reason to steal or to receive the stolen money in the unjust and barbaric system of Child Support.

And it is a real insult to the custodial parents only because it is true, as like people call me a "deadbeat" and that means nothing to me because it is not true.

The people really do need to be told of their debauchery because obviously they must think no one else knows their secret.

The thieving Child Support does harm the separated parents, but it also hurts and alienates the children, and it degrades the custodial as lacking in morals and having low integrity.

IMO, cheering on the thievery and its associated sins is a far greater and truer insult by far.

.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> There really is no "justifiable" reason to steal or to receive the stolen money in the unjust and barbaric system of Child Support.
> 
> And it is a real insult to the custodial parents only because it is true, as like people call me a "deadbeat" and that means nothing to me because it is not true.
> 
> The people really do need to be told of their debauchery because obviously they must think no one else knows their secret.
> 
> The thieving Child Support does harm the separated parents, but it also hurts and alienates the children, and it degrades the custodial as lacking in morals and having low integrity.
> 
> IMO, cheering on the thievery and its associated sins is a far greater and truer insult by far.
> 
> .



When a man and woman sleep together and the woman gets pregnant and they both decide to have the baby together and support this child together. Then, once the baby is born one of them abandons that child, wants nothing to do with that child, refuses to help in support for that child and leaves the other parent to solely care for the child and that parent isn't capable of supporting that child on their own... that isn't a JUSTIFIED reason to ask for child support? Sometimes actions should be taken to ensure the child is properly cared for.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> That is what I mean by a dead-broke parent, and only dead-broke parents go to jail.
> 
> The father being ordered to pay $27 means he was broke, because $27 per week is nothing and he needed to pay his own rent and food and clothing and more and to order a parent to pay $27 means the law is just ripping off a dead broke parent.
> 
> And then they demand $35 on top of that, as if a parent is too poor to pay the $27 that they more than double the order to $62 and $62 still means the father is dirt poor and broke.
> 
> Now you and the law claims the father "did not want to pay it" and I would say not, he could not afford to pay it.
> 
> At $62 per week means the father must have been homeless or else living in a shelter or off of the charity of his family or friends.
> 
> It gets to me that you all are such damned dirty thieves.
> 
> And I simply must point out that we do not need to know the custodial or the child to know that the child had everything the child needed including housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, and more to overflowing, and that is a fact unless the child was being abused or neglected by the custodial.
> 
> So the laws steals from parents that have little to nothing, and put the dead-broke parents into jail, and the custodial and child has no needs unfilled, and such is the law of our ignorant people.
> 
> .



Are you freaking serious? If you can't afford $27 a week then you are a pathetic loser. A parent could go mow a lawn to make that. Seriously $27 a week is a joke. My child spends that much a week on school lunches.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That is what I mean by a dead-broke parent, and only dead-broke parents go to jail.
> 
> The father being ordered to pay $27 means he was broke, because $27 per week is nothing and he needed to pay his own rent and food and clothing and more and to order a parent to pay $27 means the law is just ripping off a dead broke parent.
> 
> And I simply must point out that we do not need to know the custodial or the child to know that the child had everything the child needed including housing, food, clothing, schooling, medical care, and more to overflowing, and that is a fact unless the child was being abused or neglected by the custodial.
> 
> So the laws steals from parents that have little to nothing, and put the dead-broke parents into jail, and the custodial and child has no needs unfilled, and such is the law of our ignorant people.



JP Cusick, All I'm reading from you is excuses not to pay child support. One excuse after another. 
I posted this info: Because I knew, You would reply exactly the way I thought you would and you did.

There are some people that do choose not to pay child support. That's a fact !

It's not because their actually Dead Broke, in every sense of the word. But because they don't want to give the ex money. Some think the ex is spending the money on themselves and not their child. I can understand that we don't want to feel like where supporting the ex.

Let's be real here. Men talk to one another. We hear the story's. I'm not deaf.

Now if I knew someone that didn't have 2 cent to their name and they actually lost their job. Then I may feel sorry for them. Depends on how they got there. FYI, This person does work and lives on a farm, never been homeless, loves the bottle. Has worked for cash in the pass. Yes, I know this person. Actually I know the whole family. He was living with his new girlfriend for quite a few years and she was even working. 

Just because you think, The child has everything they need such as housing, food, 
clothing, schooling, medical care, and more to overflowing. As you have said repeatly. 

Even though, All these things may be provided for by the Custodial parent. In the best possible way they can. That's still no excuse for not paying child support. The non custodial parent is still obligated to half of the cost of supporting their child (ren). 

That's what a real dad does. Any man can father a child. It takes a real man to be a dad.

Some men think that should stop supporting their child (ren) after they spilt up. 
Some just think they should hand the ex money now and then. When it suit's them.

Sorry it doesn't work that way.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Geruch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it's called, Modified Earnings Withholding Order
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws say that a parent can modify the Child Support order, but *they insult and degrade the parents* just for trying to lower the payments, and *the Courts often refuse to lower the amount*, and even when it is lowered it is still just stealing the parents livelihood.
Click to expand...


You said, They insult and degrade the parents. Has this been your personal experience? 
I haven't seen this happen yet. How does the judge insult and degrade parents?

What's reason's do you think a Judge would refuse to lower the child support payments?
And do you have any data to back up your claim?

Cause I feel your putting all child support cases in one basket.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> Are you freaking serious? If you can't afford $27 a week then you are a pathetic loser. A parent could go mow a lawn to make that. Seriously $27 a week is a joke. My child spends that much a week on school lunches.



That really was my own point that $27 means the father is dead-broke and the law is ripping off a pauper.

The fact that people like you and the law will not believe nor respect the impoverished parents means that they can not trust the law, and they must either fight back or sit in jail or some other form of civil disobedience, and in this unjust process the children are alienated from their God given parent.

If the parents would listen to me then I would advise them all to stop pleading with the Child Support thieves, and start using their little money in buying more effective ways of defending themselves and their families by actively fighting the thievery. 

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> If the parents would listen to me...


... so they could try to attain the same level of respect and success you have in your many years as an upstanding citizen?


Oh, wait...   
(Sorry T_P, I had to use your idea because it was the best setup.)


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Geruch said:


> There are some people that do choose not to pay child support. That's a fact !



I believe that all separated parents need to chose to stop paying the thieving Child Support.

There are many if not all the separated parents (few exceptions) that minimize the thieving Child Support as best as they can.

To try to minimize or try to avoid the Child Support is not the same as open defiance of the dirty thieves.

If I ever learn of such a parent then I will volunteer my own assistance to them in every way that I could.



Geruch said:


> Even though, All these things may be provided for by the Custodial parent. In the best possible way they can. That's still no excuse for not paying child support. The non custodial parent is still obligated to half of the cost of supporting their child (ren).
> 
> That's what a real dad does. Any man can father a child. It takes a real man to be a dad.



The thing is that you are equating the children as a burden and a liability when the truth is that the children are a blessing from God and it is the separated parent that is getting cheated.

If some one took a quality car from another person then they would expect to be paid and rightly so, but imagine the car is taken as in a divorce and the car custodian wants the other person to pay them for the gas and insurance claiming it is expensive to have a car. Of course that is absurd because everybody sees a car as valuable while viewing children as an expense and a burden when they are not.

When a mother (and the law) takes the child from the father, then the Mom is taking the valuable with the father being robbed of his child. Then the Mom (or Dad custodial) complains that they do not want to pay the expenses for their own child that they stoled from the other parent.  

It really is the custodial which needs to pay damages or make amends to the separated parent - for stealing their child.

.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> That really was my own point that $27 means the father is dead-broke and the law is ripping off a pauper.
> 
> The fact that people like you and the law will not believe nor respect the impoverished parents means that they can not trust the law, and they must either fight back or sit in jail or some other form of civil disobedience, and in this unjust process the children are alienated from their God given parent.
> 
> If the parents would listen to me then I would advise them all to stop pleading with the Child Support thieves, and start using their little money in buying more effective ways of defending themselves and their families by actively fighting the thievery.
> 
> .



OR... maybe if they don't have the means to support a possible child, they shouldn't take the risk of having one. Because that's what it comes down to, support the child you helped create. It's all about responsibility. Any parent that actually wanted to be involved in their child's life, would be more than willing to help support said child. So there would be no alienating going on. Just to make things clear, You are saying... if my husband left me tomorrow and wanted nothing to do with our children ever again; I was completely unable to monetarily support them because I have been the homemaker, I would be a thief for going to court for child support? If that is the case... You are off your freaking rocker!!


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> That really was my own point that $27 means the father is dead-broke and the law is ripping off a pauper.
> 
> The fact that people like you and the law will not believe nor respect the impoverished parents means that they can not trust the law, and they must either fight back or sit in jail or some other form of civil disobedience, and in this unjust process the children are alienated from their God given parent.
> 
> If the parents would listen to me then I would advise them all to stop pleading with the Child Support thieves, and start using their little money in buying more effective ways of defending themselves and their families by actively fighting the thievery.
> 
> .




If all you have to pay is $27 a week it's time to get off your ass and get a real job. If someone is that poor it's by their own choice. 

Some parents may not be able to pay.. they could have an illness or medical condition that puts them out of work. That is a different situation than the deadbeats who refuse to pay. The ones that continue to go on and have more children when they can't even support the ones they already created. Or the ones who walk into court with gold chains on their necks and name brand clothes and shoes on their back. Or how about when they pull up in the Lexus? They are not poor they are deadbeats.


----------



## Taeobi

LusbyMom said:


> If all you have to pay is $27 a week it's time to get off your ass and get a real job. If someone is that poor it's by their own choice.
> 
> Some parents may not be able to pay.. they could have an illness or medical condition that puts them out of work. That is a different situation than the deadbeats who refuse to pay. The ones that continue to go on and have more children when they can't even support the ones they already created. Or the ones who walk into court with gold chains on their necks and name brand clothes and shoes on their back. Or how about when they pull up in the Lexus? They are not poor they are deadbeats.



Couldn't agree more!!


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



Taeobi said:


> You are saying... if my husband left me tomorrow and wanted nothing to do with our children ever again; I was completely unable to monetarily support them because I have been the homemaker, I would be a thief for going to court for child support? If that is the case... You are off your freaking rocker!!



What I am saying is that if the husband does like that then he is the one off of his rocker.

And if the parent can not afford to provide for the child(ren) then they are eligible for Public Assistance and there are other options too, like selling their property or moving to a cheaper place or living with their extended family, and other options too.

A Dad (or a Mom) that gives up their spouse and children and their home, is a person that is self destructing.

You paint it as if the Man is escaping a prison into his freedom so he needs to be hunted down and forced to pay damages, and that perception is horribly wrong and misguided.

The Court is the thief, so a custodial parent going to the Court shows them selves to be weak and lacking the simplest of understanding and faith.  


.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The thing is that you are equating the children as a burden and a liability
> when the truth is that the children are a blessing from God and it is the separated parent that is getting cheated.



You may think I see it that why, but I don't. Children aren't a burden or liability.
I believe, It's up to both parents to support the child financally. Whether their together or not.



VoteJP said:


> Of course that is absurd because everybody sees a car as valuable
> while viewing children as an expense and a burden when they are not.



Owning a car is a EXPENSE not a valuable. Your compairing a car to a child. I think is  just plain stupid.



VoteJP said:


> If the parent can not afford to provide for the child(ren) then they are eligible for Public Assistance.



Oh so that's your answer, Can't afford to raise your own children. Just go on Welfare.
The laws need to hold both parent financally responsible for raising their own children. 50/50


----------



## This_person

hvp05 said:


> (Sorry T_P, I had to use your idea because it was the best setup.)


No problem, Jimmy sets himself up for those constantly. 

He just doesn't comprehend that the solution to all of his supposed ills already exists.  But, they don't exist in his version of reality, because they actually take the responsibility out of other people's hands and put the responsibility in the law-breakers' hands.  he won't abide by that.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> If all you have to pay is $27 a week it's time to get off your ass and get a real job. If someone is that poor it's by their own choice.
> 
> Some parents may not be able to pay.. they could have an illness or medical condition that puts them out of work. That is a different situation than the deadbeats who refuse to pay. The ones that continue to go on and have more children when they can't even support the ones they already created. Or the ones who walk into court with gold chains on their necks and name brand clothes and shoes on their back. Or how about when they pull up in the Lexus? They are not poor they are deadbeats.



The point here is attacking the parents and wanting to stop them from having children.

In fact the children are all fine and well provided and this is just an attack on the parents with hateful intentions.

And if the children were with these parents as in a marriage and family unit then the children would be poor as like their parents here are impoverished because poor parents do have poor children.

So again, the Child Support is not about supporting children as it is only about punishing parents and controlling parenting.

And those separated children need these their own parents in their lives and the children do not need their parents attacked and degraded as this, and the children do not need the money that is trying to be squeezed out of these impoverished parents.

"LusbyMom" is giving a barbaric and misguided perception that the Courts give which hurts the children as it hurts the parents and destroys the family unit.

.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> What I am saying is that if the husband does like that then he is the one off of his rocker.
> 
> And if the parent can not afford to provide for the child(ren) then they are eligible for Public Assistance and there are other options too, like selling their property or moving to a cheaper place or living with their extended family, and other options too.
> 
> A Dad (or a Mom) that gives up their spouse and children and their home, is a person that is self destructing.
> 
> You paint it as if the Man is escaping a prison into his freedom so he needs to be hunted down and forced to pay damages, and that perception is horribly wrong and misguided.
> 
> The Court is the thief, so a custodial parent going to the Court shows them selves to be weak and lacking the simplest of understanding and faith.  .



So you're saying... if my husband left me and abandoned our children. Instead of asking him to be a responsible adult and help in supporting our children, I should go for public assistance, sell off all my property and things and re-root my children's lives and move in with extended family? And struggle for the rest of my life making ends meet, all the while he enjoys his "freedom"

There are people that are just selfish. Sometimes it has nothing to do with self destruction. a man escaping for his freedom and being hunted down and forced to pay "damages" (WOW, that's what you call supporting your flesh and blood?) It's like that car analogy you use... if a man was to buy a car and then abandon it and refuse to make payments on it. Bill collectors would come a callin' because he has an obligation that he is required to fill. Same so with a child... you have an obligation to help raise your child and if you refuse to do that on your own, then the custodial parent has every right to take necessary steps to ensure the children are taken care of. Some parents don't want the responsibility of children, so they have them and abandon them. This is NOT right and they should be held accountable.

Another ex: A mother has 1 child, 3 years later has another child. 6ish years into being a mother she decides she doesn't want the first child and gives the child to the child's grandparents. 2-3 years later she has another child. A year or 2 after that, she decides she doesn't want the 2nd child and gives the child to the child's father. 2ish years later she has another child, a few months into having this child she gives child #3 to the child's grandparents. What would your recommendation for this scenario be?? She should not be responsible for these children that she brought into this world in some way?? Because after keeping them for a few years, she decides she's over it, that it's not convenient anymore?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The point here is attacking the parents and wanting to stop them from having children.
> 
> In fact the children are all fine and well provided and this is just an attack on the parents with hateful intentions.
> 
> And if the children were with these parents as in a marriage and family unit then the children would be poor as like their parents here are impoverished because poor parents do have poor children.
> 
> So again, the Child Support is not about supporting children as it is only about punishing parents and controlling parenting.
> 
> And those separated children need these their own parents in their lives and the children do not need their parents attacked and degraded as this, and the children do not need the money that is trying to be squeezed out of these impoverished parents.
> 
> "LusbyMom" is giving a barbaric and misguided perception that the Courts give which hurts the children as it hurts the parents and destroys the family unit.
> 
> .




If you can't support the children you already have then you shouldn't be out breeding again. Just like all the parents on welfare who keep popping them out. If you can't pay for them then don't have them. 

Child support is about supporting the children and BOTH parents should do that. Not welfare and not one parent. 

So as long as the parents are still married then it's okay for BOTH of them to support the children, but that doesn't apply if they divorce? Why is that?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> So you're saying... if my husband left me and abandoned our children. Instead of asking him to be a responsible adult and help in supporting our children, I should go for public assistance,



I wish you would not make it so personal as in your own life, so I am referring to the equation as to any couple and I do not know your family.

So in such a case as you describe then if one goes to the Court then that too is a form of "public assistance" except instead of asking for their welfare from the Social Services they are going to Court asking for the "Public Assistance" in obtaining vengeance and for brute force against the father (or Mom) of their children.

If one wanted "responsibility" from another person then they would seek it from that other person and NOT through a public Court.



Taeobi said:


> sell off all my property and things and re-root my children's lives and move in with extended family?



One would only do that if it was necessary, and it is not always needed, and if it is needed then one needs to do as needed.

Desertion is near the same as death, and if the father died then the family would have to make such adjustments as needed.

The children need their parents far more than any properties, and children are to be raised to honor both parents even if one parent is absent. 



Taeobi said:


> And struggle for the rest of my life making ends meet, all the while he enjoys his "freedom"



It is severely wrong to see it as "freedom" to lose one's spouse and children and home because that is NOT a healthy idea of freedom.

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." - Janis Joplin. 

And it is just baseless fear that claims one will "struggle to make ends meet" because one might struggle if the person stays in place, and life is a struggle anyway, and things might greatly improve and they usually do work out in time.



Taeobi said:


> There are people that are just selfish. Sometimes it has nothing to do with self destruction.



Selfishness is always self destructive.

If we see a young child being selfish then we teach them not to do it because other people will not like it and others will go away from them and the selfishness will stay with the person like a sickness.



Taeobi said:


> It's like that car analogy you use... if a man was to buy a car and then abandon it and refuse to make payments on it. Bill collectors would come a callin' because he has an obligation that he is required to fill. Same so with a child...



No, the repo-man takes back the car because that is the valuable.

The one with the child(ren) is the one with the property - they have the valuable.

Coming to collect the gasoline so they can drive the car is absurd, just like claiming Child Support to feed one's own child. 

I say if a Mom wants the money without marriage then give the child to the Dad and then he will provide for his own child.

If we give him a valuable car then he will buy the gas and insurance himself without complaint, and do maintenance and repairs too.



Taeobi said:


> you have an obligation to help raise your child and if you refuse to do that on your own, then the custodial parent has every right to take necessary steps to ensure the children are taken care of.



Taking the necessary steps is fine, but hunting down parents and stealing their money is not necessary.

The truly necessary thing is to try to repair the family unit and to keep the children out of the disputes.

The ignorant Child Support and Custody laws put the children in the middle of the hostilities as they attack the parents.



Taeobi said:


> Some parents don't want the responsibility of children, so they have them and abandon them. This is NOT right and they should be held accountable.



Of course it is right - and thank God those parents do leave.

Tracking them down to hold them accountable is an act that creates hostilities and creates criminals.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I wish you would not make it so personal as in your own life, so I am referring to the equation as to any couple and I do not know your family.
> Haven't you made it personal? You are the one holding this anger for so many years because they stole your money for the son you created.
> 
> So in such a case as you describe then if one goes to the Court then that too is a form of "public assistance" except instead of asking for their welfare from the Social Services they are going to Court asking for the "Public Assistance" in obtaining vengeance and for brute force against the father (or Mom) of their children.
> Having a PARENT support their own child is not the same as collecting welfare from the state.
> 
> 
> If one wanted "responsibility" from another person then they would seek it from that other person and NOT through a public Court.
> 
> A parent shouldn't have to go seek child support the other parent should give it freely.
> 
> One would only do that if it was necessary, and it is not always needed, and if it is needed then one needs to do as needed.
> 
> Desertion is near the same as death, and if the father died then the family would have to make such adjustments as needed.
> You walking out and deserting your son is not the same as death. It's worse. Death isn't a choice but desertion is.
> 
> 
> The children need their parents far more than any properties, and children are to be raised to honor both parents even if one parent is absent.
> 
> The children do need their parents but they also need a home, food, clothing, healthcare etc. How do you teach a child to honor a parent that walks away from them and deserts them? Teaching them to honor someone like that condones that behavior and I don't intend to raise my children to believe it's ok to walk away from family and responsibilities.
> 
> It is severely wrong to see it as "freedom" to lose one's spouse and children and home because that is NOT a healthy idea of freedom.
> 
> You seem to think it's always the custodial parent who ended the marriage. What about the dad who didn't want the marriage anymore and wanted his freedom and walked away?
> "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." - Janis Joplin.
> 
> And it is just baseless fear that claims one will "struggle to make ends meet" because one might struggle if the person stays in place, and life is a struggle anyway, and things might greatly improve and they usually do work out in time.
> 
> 
> 
> Selfishness is always self destructive.
> 
> If we see a young child being selfish then we teach them not to do it because other people will not like it and others will go away from them and the selfishness will stay with the person like a sickness.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the repo-man takes back the car because that is the valuable.
> 
> The one with the child(ren) is the one with the property - they have the valuable.
> Children are not property and for you to say they are shows how very warped you really are.
> 
> 
> Coming to collect the gasoline so they can drive the car is absurd, just like claiming Child Support to feed one's own child.
> 
> I say if a Mom wants the money without marriage then give the child to the Dad and then he will provide for his own child.
> What if the mom is the one who wanted the marriage and the dad is the one who deserted?
> 
> 
> If we give him a valuable car then he will buy the gas and insurance himself without complaint, and do maintenance and repairs too.
> 
> 
> 
> Taking the necessary steps is fine, but hunting down parents and stealing their money is not necessary.
> 
> The truly necessary thing is to try to repair the family unit and to keep the children out of the disputes.
> 
> The ignorant Child Support and Custody laws put the children in the middle of the hostilities as they attack the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is right - and thank God those parents do leave.
> 
> Tracking them down to hold them accountable is an act that creates hostilities and creates criminals.
> So it's your ex-wife's fault you became a criminal? It's her fault that together you created a son.
> .


----------



## Geruch

I don't see how any man or woman could turn their back on their children. 
A non custodial parent thinks they no longer have to support their own child (ren) 
just because they spilt up. Is being a bit self center.

You can except Welfare to pick up with the non-custodial parent won't.

As a father, I couldn't imagine doing that to my children. 
I think it takes a person with a cold heart to do that. 

JP I take it your son still in Flordia. At least he had sense enough to get far away from you.


----------



## Taeobi

I am using my family as a hypothetical example, none of this actually pertains to myself.

I completely disagree, but you are obviously choosing to see this from your perspective and your's alone. It's not always about punishment, sometimes it is just for help in raising a child. I know there are people that use CS to punish the other parent, but that is NOT all the time. I think that is something you need to realize and phrase your words more openly. Not everyone seeking help in raising a child is a theif, or seeking vengence.

I believe that most parents to go to the parent first asking for help, and if the other parent refuses again and again... then the custodial parent can do what's necessary to obtain support for their child.

"Desertion is near the same as death, and if the father died then the family would have to make such adjustments as needed."
DESERTION IS NO WHERE NEAR DEATH!! That I do know from experience, so unless you share that experience don't you dare open your mouth about that type of situation. A deceaced parent (unless suicide) had not control over leaving their child. A deserting parent MADE THAT CHOICE!! OH, and even after death, the parent is still supporting the child with social security survivor benefits. 

I couldn't agree with LM more. I will NEVER raise my children to walk away from their children, family and responsibilities. And if God forbid, something did happen and their family split up, I would expect my child to do everything possible to keep things amicable for the children. 

Whatever issues you have, you need to OPEN YOUR EYES and stop seeing things so one sided. Yes, some people take advantage, but there are so many that don't.


----------



## VoteJP

*J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010*



LusbyMom said:


> If you can't support the children you already have then you shouldn't be out breeding again. Just like all the parents on welfare who keep popping them out. If you can't pay for them then don't have them.



I dislike your terminology as it cheapens children and parenting.  

Poor and impoverished parents have always had poor and impoverished children, and it is cruel and inhuman to create the laws that make such parenting as punishable by force of law which is what has been done.

Laws that make so only richer people can be parents is what you describe and it is near what we have now with the thieving Child Support, and in that I believe we all have a duty to fight it.



LusbyMom said:


> Child support is about supporting the children and BOTH parents should do that. Not welfare and not one parent.



That is your opinion and it is the belief of many people, but I say it is extremely wrong to turn that idea into State enforced laws.

That is not the proper role of decent government.



LusbyMom said:


> So as long as the parents are still married then it's okay for BOTH of them to support the children, but that doesn't apply if they divorce? Why is that?



Because divorce and separation is meant to hurt, and to make it easy or comfortable is to promote and provide for the destruction of families.

In every case the children already have all of their needs filled to overflowing, so no other relief is justifiable.

.


----------



## Taeobi

*Jp*

I keep seeing people mention that you have a son and you have had experience with child support. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying because I can't see where you are coming from. Feel free to open my eyes to your experience, then I might be able to understand better. I try to see things from all sides, but can't do so when I don't know what side you are coming from. You continuously claim that everyone is out to get the parent that left or was forced to leave. Is that from your own personal experience? I'm not being nosy, just trying to understand where you are coming from.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> Haven't you made it personal? You are the one holding this anger for so many years because they stole your money for the son you created.



I did make things personal about myself, and I do try to accept the personal criticisms thrown at me, but I meant that I did not and do not want to be personal to others.

Be personal with me, but not with others.



LusbyMom said:


> You walking out and deserting your son is not the same as death. It's worse. Death isn't a choice but desertion is.



Actually desertion is BETTER better than death, because desertion allows for future reconciliation or amends.

If you stop hating the parents then you might see that death is worse than absence in any case.



LusbyMom said:


> The children do need their parents but they also need a home, food, clothing, healthcare etc. How do you teach a child to honor a parent that walks away from them and deserts them? Teaching them to honor someone like that condones that behavior and I don't intend to raise my children to believe it's ok to walk away from family and responsibilities.



That means you will teach your children to be weak and subservient sheep with no parental loyalty.

And honestly it is the fathers that teach the children their masculine values so the Mom simply can not instill those in a child.



LusbyMom said:


> You seem to think it's always the custodial parent who ended the marriage. What about the dad who didn't want the marriage anymore and wanted his freedom and walked away?



I do not ever say the custodial parent ended the marriage or union, and it makes no difference which parent did the separation or which one was at fault.

And I believe in most cases it is the Dad that walks away even when it is the Mom's fault, but that is slowly changing as Men figure out the injustices of the laws and they turn it onto the mothers instead of taking the load them selves.

But I say: Freedom only means nothing left to lose, because losing one's spouse and child and home is an ugly kind of freedom.



LusbyMom said:


> What if the mom is the one who wanted the marriage and the dad is the one who deserted?



That is fine for the Mom, but the problem arises when they only want the money as in stolen Child Support cash.

If the Mom really wants her husband then she is not going to send a pack of legal dogs to steal his money as Child Support does.



LusbyMom said:


> So it's your ex-wife's fault you became a criminal? It's her fault that together you created a son.



No, I do not blame anything on my ex-wife, and I regret the hard things that did happened to her because of me.

But I am happy that she gave me our son.

The one I do blame for the legal injustices is the Court and the laws.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> I am using my family as a hypothetical example, none of this actually pertains to myself.



That is cool.



Taeobi said:


> It's not always about punishment, sometimes it is just for help in raising a child. I know there are people that use CS to punish the other parent, but that is NOT all the time. I think that is something you need to realize and phrase your words more openly. Not everyone seeking help in raising a child is a thief, or seeking vengeance.



The custodial parents might be true-blue and wonderful, but the Courts and the laws NEVER never are.

The custodial is not really a "thief" as the law and Courts are the thieves and the custodial is simply receiving the stolen money.

So a custodial pretending to be nice and sweet is being disingenuous while they stand behind the thieves and the brutal injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.



Taeobi said:


> Whatever issues you have, you need to OPEN YOUR EYES and stop seeing things so one sided. Yes, some people take advantage, but there are so many that don't.



It does not matter if the people involved take advantage or be cooperative, because it is the law that is corrupt and immoral and destructive to the families.

This really is the reason that I try not to make it as "personal" because this is not about the persons but about the injustice of the laws.


.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> I keep seeing people mention that you have a son and you have had experience with child support. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying because I can't see where you are coming from. Feel free to open my eyes to your experience, then I might be able to understand better. I try to see things from all sides, but can't do so when I don't know what side you are coming from. You continuously claim that everyone is out to get the parent that left or was forced to leave. Is that from your own personal experience? I'm not being nosy, just trying to understand where you are coming from.



My own case is closed and finished some 13 or 14 years ago, so I am not fighting or arguing about my own case.

It might be hard to see it - but I really am only seeking to end the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws because I care about the society that we live in.

My own personal experiences were extreme and excessive, so I do not see the events of my case as a help to the discussion.

.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> That is cool.
> 
> 
> 
> The custodial parents might be true-blue and wonderful, but the Courts and the laws NEVER never are.
> 
> The custodial is not really a "thief" as the law and Courts are the thieves and the custodial is simply receiving the stolen money.
> 
> So a custodial pretending to be nice and sweet is being disingenuous while they stand behind the thieves and the brutal injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter if the people involved take advantage or be cooperative, because it is the law that is corrupt and immoral and destructive to the families.
> 
> This really is the reason that I try not to make it as "personal" because this is not about the persons but about the injustice of the laws.
> 
> 
> .



You make it personal by calling people who go through the court system thieves.


----------



## Geruch

Taeobi - If you want to fine out more just go to these other forums.

Baltimore Sun talk forum - Search Results

J.P. for MD Governor - Herald-Mail Forums

The Frederick News-Post Online - Frederick County Maryland Daily Newspaper

Basically the same views but different year. Also known as JPC, Sr. &  JPC sr 

http://forums.somd.com/politics/65692-dead-broke-parents-child-support.html

http://forums.somd.com/politics/69306-child-support-solution.html

http://forums.somd.com/politics/68801-child-support-issue.html



> "My son's mom died of cancer at the young age of 38 in 1994, and our son was then 17."
> http://forums.somd.com/elections/100415-cusick-vs-hoyer-6.html#post2081236




A Maverick Proud of His Jail Time 
A Maverick Proud of His Jail Time Takes on Steny Hoyer in Primary - washingtonpost.com

"In 1994 was the first time incarceration 3 months for child support and again 6 months in 1997." Farther down, the narrative continues: "Mr. Cusick proceeded to spray paint the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown with green spray paint." 

"When Cusick divorced his wife at age 25, after six years of marriage, he said despair and confusion pushed him to leave St. Mary's County for the first time in his life. He bounced from job to job in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Illinois and New York. With no job prospects, he missed making child support payments for several years. He said he filed several petitions to delay his payments, but "corrupt" judges wouldn't accept his arguments, even after his wife died of cancer and he was required to pay her second husband."

You can read the rest in the link above.

You will see that this has been a on going battle for him. Ever since he had to pay child support.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> Actually desertion is BETTER better than death, because desertion allows for future reconciliation or amends.
> 
> If you stop hating the parents then you might see that death is worse than absence in any case.



Again, you have NO business speaking of this unless you have experienced both.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> You make it personal by calling people who go through the court system thieves.



Yes, receiving the stolen money is indeed a personal shot and I hope that strikes where it is deserved.

I am not ruling out any personal affront - no, it is not an all-or-nothing equation, as I am just not talking about some anonymous poster's family in personal terms.

I have posted about the personal business concerning Sarah Palin's daughter and the father Levi Johnston because they are public figures and we have links to the needed specifics so that is a different case.

If some one wants to put their real name and Court records out here as I have done myself then I will talk about any personal issue then.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> Again, you have NO business speaking of this unless you have experienced both.



I do not agree that one must have experience in discussing such things, but in this case I do have personal experience of my own.

I was 16 when my father died of cancer, and my son was 17 when his Mom died of her cancer, and I myself felt that I had to leave or abandon (as legally defined) my wife and young son, and I have other not-so-personal experiences and knowledge about those conditions too.

But I invite anyone else to discuss both "desertion" and "death" whether they have personal experiences or not.

.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> I do not agree that one must have experience in discussing such things, but in this case I do have personal experience of my own.
> 
> I was 16 when my father died of cancer, and my son was 17 when his Mom died of her cancer, and I myself felt that I had to leave or abandon (as legally defined) my wife and young son, and I have other not-so-personal experiences and knowledge about those conditions too.
> 
> But I invite anyone else to discuss both "desertion" and "death" whether they have personal experiences or not.
> 
> .



No one can really know the difference of losing someone and someone leaving unless you have experienced it yourself; gone through the emotions personally. I think you are just going to such lengths to justify in your own mind what you did many years ago... Not my concern. My daughter lost her father and struggles with it everyday, BUT, she NEVER questions his love for her. I myself was abandoned by my own father at a young age and constantly questioned what I did to make him not love me or not want me. That is the difference.


----------



## Taeobi

Geruch said:


> Taeobi - If you want to fine out more just go to these other forums.
> 
> Baltimore Sun talk forum - Search Results
> 
> J.P. for MD Governor - Herald-Mail Forums
> 
> The Frederick News-Post Online - Frederick County Maryland Daily Newspaper
> 
> Basically the same views but different year. Also known as JPC, Sr. &  JPC sr
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/politics/65692-dead-broke-parents-child-support.html
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/politics/69306-child-support-solution.html
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/politics/68801-child-support-issue.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Maverick Proud of His Jail Time
> A Maverick Proud of His Jail Time Takes on Steny Hoyer in Primary - washingtonpost.com
> 
> "In 1994 was the first time incarceration 3 months for child support and again 6 months in 1997." Farther down, the narrative continues: "Mr. Cusick proceeded to spray paint the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown with green spray paint."
> 
> "When Cusick divorced his wife at age 25, after six years of marriage, he said despair and confusion pushed him to leave St. Mary's County for the first time in his life. He bounced from job to job in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Illinois and New York. With no job prospects, he missed making child support payments for several years. He said he filed several petitions to delay his payments, but "corrupt" judges wouldn't accept his arguments, even after his wife died of cancer and he was required to pay her second husband."
> 
> You can read the rest in the link above.
> 
> You will see that this has been a on going battle for him. Ever since he had to pay child support.



Thanks!! that was very informative...


----------



## LusbyMom

Taeobi said:


> No one can really know the difference of losing someone and someone leaving unless you have experienced it yourself; gone through the emotions personally. I think you are just going to such lengths to justify in your own mind what you did many years ago... Not my concern. My daughter lost her father and struggles with it everyday, BUT, she NEVER questions his love for her. I myself was abandoned by my own father at a young age and constantly questioned what I did to make him not love me or not want me. That is the difference.





At least with death the child doesn't feel like they did wrong. Desertion is worse on the child. But JPC isn't concerned  with the child... he is only concerned with the poor men. 

He has never had to explain to a child why dad doesn't bother to do a damn thing. He wasn't the one sitting there with a child in tears because once again the NCP couldn't be bothered with visitation or showing up to a special event.


----------



## Geruch

*How JP Cusick brains work*

I found this post on the Frederick Forum. It's the 9th one down. 
The Frederick News-Post Online - Frederick County Maryland Daily Newspaper



CountryGal said:


> How JP brains work.
> 
> I'll support our child so long as were married and living in the same household. If I ever commit adultery, physically abuse you or for whatever reason we don't get along. When you throw me out and we get a divorce. Let me make this clear, You and our child are on your own. I don't want nothing to do with neither one of you.
> 
> Don't come to me expecting me to pay child support. You don't need child support. The child has everything he needs now. Your not going to need anything for our child as he gets older. I'm not paying child support. Why should I? Go get a job. Go get 2 or 3 jobs if you have too. I don't care. I'm not paying it.
> 
> Let me make myself clear, Your not stealing my hard earn money. You know what God said, Thou shall not steal. This is what you do. You go directly to DSS, they will give you a check if haven't found a job. They may give you some food stamps too and medical card. Maybe you can get on Section 8. Let the taxpayers money support you and our child.
> 
> Sorry babe but I'll be traveling from state to state having fun. Just wanted to let you know. So don't bother looking for me. You won't be able to fine me, ha ha. My financally obligation towards our child stop once we got divorce. I may be back after our son turns 18. Were see, I'll let you, then again maybe not.
> 
> Now if there was a law in place. Were we had to stay married no matter what. This wouldn't be happening. So blame it on the Divorce laws, child support laws and the custody laws. I didn't break the family up, I swear I didn't. The laws are tearing family's apart. Those laws need to be changed and that's why I'm running to be the next Governor of Maryland.
> 
> I think that's about sum it up. After translating what he said and his pass history.


Since I been reading a lot of his post. I happen to think it's close to the way he thinks.

"My Prison Space"
MyPrisonSpace.com — VoteJP — Profile — Public

"My Prison Space Forum"
Ex-con running for election as MD Governor. - Prison Talk


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> I myself was abandoned by my own father at a young age and constantly questioned what I did to make him not love me or not want me. That is the difference.



It is the custodial parent's job to teach the children to hold a high regard and honor their absent parent to prevent that from happening.

So the job of custody was provided inadequately to you in that regard.

They (or she) might have provided for your body but neglected your soul.

Part of the task of custody is to teach and raise the child right.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> At least with death the child doesn't feel like they did wrong. Desertion is worse on the child. But JPC isn't concerned  with the child... he is only concerned with the poor men.



I am not concerned about "poor men" as I am concerned about the family as a unit, and in some cases it is the Mom that is absent from the family, so I am not doing Men against Women.

And separated parents are not better off being dead, and by being alive it allows for later reconciliation and amends with the children.



LusbyMom said:


> He has never had to explain to a child why dad doesn't bother to do a damn thing. He wasn't the one sitting there with a child in tears because once again the NCP couldn't be bothered with visitation or showing up to a special event.



Teaching the child to honor their missing parent is part of the job of custody.

The child crying because of feeling abandoned means the custodial is failing in the job of providing custody in a healthy way.

.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> I am not concerned about "poor men" as I am concerned about the family as a unit, and in some cases it is the Mom that is absent from the family, so I am not doing Men against Women.
> 
> And separated parents are not better off being dead, and by being alive it allows for later reconciliation and amends with the children.
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching the child to honor their missing parent is part of the job of custody.
> 
> The child crying because of feeling abandoned means the custodial is failing in the job of providing custody in a healthy way.
> 
> .



As I showed before woman and men are both capable of abandoning their children. You are correct on that one. Separated parents and a parent who wants nothing to do with their child are two different things. I do believe that you should never speak ill about a parent to a child, regardless of them being around or not. The child should be able to grow up and form their own opinion regarding their parents. BUT, a child crying because of feeling abandoned does NOT mean the custodial parent is failing in any way. No one can control what a child feels or how their thought process works.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> It is the custodial parent's job to teach the children to hold a high regard and honor their absent parent to prevent that from happening.
> 
> So the job of custody was provided inadequately to you in that regard.
> 
> They (or she) might have provided for your body but neglected your soul.
> 
> Part of the task of custody is to teach and raise the child right.
> 
> .



Did your father abandon you at a young age?? NO, so you have NO CLUE what you are speaking about!! My mother did a damn good job of consoling me and never spoke ill of my father!! Yet, I still had those feelings. Despite what someone tells you, you are still going to feel what you feel and think what you think.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I am not concerned about "poor men" as I am concerned about the family as a unit, and in some cases it is the Mom that is absent from the family, so I am not doing Men against Women.
> 
> And separated parents are not better off being dead, and by being alive it allows for later reconciliation and amends with the children.
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching the child to honor their missing parent is part of the job of custody.
> 
> The child crying because of feeling abandoned means the custodial is failing in the job of providing custody in a healthy way.
> 
> .




The parent isn't missing.. the parent ABANDONED the child. Their is a difference. 

It is not the custodial fault that the child feels abandoned because the NCP ABANDONED the child. That blame falls soley on the NCP


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> My mother did a damn good job of consoling me and never spoke ill of my father!! Yet, I still had those feelings.



As I said before, I am not talking personally about you or your Mom as that would be way out of my line.

But to *"never speak ill"* of the separated or absent parent is not enough.

Kind of like seeing a fire and saying "I did not start it", and "I did not do anything about it" when if fact if one sees a fire then they are to put the fire out or call the fire department, because doing nothing when some thing needs to be done is not satisfactory.

It is true that a custodial is wrong to talk-down the absent parent to the children, but at the same time the custodial is to teach the children to honor their father and mother as that would be a part of having the custody of a child.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> The parent isn't missing.. the parent ABANDONED the child. Their is a difference.
> 
> It is not the custodial fault that the child feels abandoned because the NCP ABANDONED the child. That blame falls soley on the NCP



The word "abandoned" is really a legal term with a purposely imposed negative meaning with it, and a minor child could only learn such terminology in regard to their own parent by being taught the ideas and taught the feelings, instead of being taught properly and in a healthy way that honors the absent parent regardless of how the law or the custodial parents views the separated parent.

A child can not feel abandoned unless some one plants that negative idea in their thoughts.

.


----------



## Tilted

VoteJP said:


> A child can not feel abandoned unless some one plants that negative idea in their thoughts.


 
So, how would a young child left in the middle of the desert - with no adult in sight to plant a 'negative idea in their thoughts' - feel? Describe for us the emotions you think they might be likely to experience as days went by and there was no one there to help them, or take care of them, or explain to them what was going on or why they were in this situation?  Now remember - there's no one around to plant any thoughts whatsoever in their mind.  Do you think their feelings are likely to be more fairly characterized as 'negative' or 'positive'?

If it makes your consideration of the situation easier, you can ignore that little hunger and thirst aspect of the situation.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> A child can not feel abandoned unless some one plants that negative idea in their thoughts.


Why?  While they may not know the terminology, why can't they feel abandoned if they've been abandoned?


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> As I said before, I am not talking personally about you or your Mom as that would be way out of my line.
> 
> But to *"never speak ill"* of the separated or absent parent is not enough.
> 
> Kind of like seeing a fire and saying "I did not start it", and "I did not do anything about it" when if fact if one sees a fire then they are to put the fire out or call the fire department, because doing nothing when some thing needs to be done is not satisfactory.
> 
> It is true that a custodial is wrong to talk-down the absent parent to the children, but at the same time the custodial is to teach the children to honor their father and mother as that would be a part of having the custody of a child.
> 
> .



Me- "I myself was abandoned by my own father at a young age and constantly questioned what I did to make him not love me or not want me. That is the difference."

You- "It is the custodial parent's job to teach the children to hold a high regard and honor their absent parent to prevent that from happening. So the job of custody was provided inadequately to you in that regard." 

IMHO, that was directed to me. Please, if anyone sees otherwise, let me know...


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> A child can not feel abandoned unless some one plants that negative idea in their thoughts.
> 
> .



Hmmmm, didn't I already clarify this? Father left, I felt abandoned; not that I used that term when I was a child, but feeling like you were left is the same freaking thing!! Kids feel that without anyone putting anything in their heads. Where do you get this stuff from??


----------



## Taeobi

Tilted said:


> So, how would a young child left in the middle of the desert - with no adult in sight to plant a 'negative idea in their thoughts' - feel? Describe for us the emotions you think they might be likely to experience as days went by and there was no one there to help them, or take care of them, or explain to them what was going on or why they were in this situation?  Now remember - there's no one around to plant any thoughts whatsoever in their mind.  Do you think their feelings are likely to be more fairly characterized as 'negative' or 'positive'?
> 
> If it makes your consideration of the situation easier, you can ignore that little hunger and thirst aspect of the situation.



Or when a young child goes through separation anxiety, they are fearful that the parent will be gone forever... that can start as early as 8 months.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> It is the custodial parent's job to teach the children to hold a high regard and honor their absent parent to prevent that from happening.
> 
> 
> .



Jimmy, you don't believe in telling kids about Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc., but you want the custodial parent to lie to the kid and tell them that the deserter is good? 

Shouldn't the parent tell the kids the truth?

In your case, little Jimmy asks "mom, why did daddy leave? Why doesn't he ever call? Why doesn't he love me? Where did he go?"

She's stuck with either lying to him by saying you are "busy" or she can tell him the truth - you deserted them to wander around the country drinking, drugging, raping, and hiding from your responsibility as a father and husband.

She could either lie to him and say you want to be there with him, or tell him the truth that you just don't give a damn.

What is it Jimmy? Should she have lied to protect you? Pretended you were the man that you weren't? Or was the truth that you are a selfish, greedy POS be better?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> the custodial is to teach the children to honor their father and mother as that would be a part of having the custody of a child.


MMDad had a good point:  how is the custodial supposed to teach the child to honor someone who is dishonorable?

You say you aim to be truthful at all times, but clearly that is not the case here.  (Not a surprise to anyone else besides, perhaps, you.)




VoteJP said:


> The word "abandoned" is really a legal term with a purposely imposed negative meaning with it


Okay, can you redefine "abandoned" so that it has a positive, uplifting meaning?  Thanks.



> A child can not feel abandoned unless some one plants that negative idea in their thoughts.


Someone like... I don't know, the parent who abandoned them?   :shrug:


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Tilted said:


> So, how would a young child left in the middle of the desert - with no adult in sight to plant a 'negative idea in their thoughts' - feel? Describe for us the emotions you think they might be likely to experience as days went by and there was no one there to help them, or take care of them, or explain to them what was going on or why they were in this situation?  Now remember - there's no one around to plant any thoughts whatsoever in their mind.  Do you think their feelings are likely to be more fairly characterized as 'negative' or 'positive'?
> 
> If it makes your consideration of the situation easier, you can ignore that little hunger and thirst aspect of the situation.



That would be true if a child was dropped into a deserted place and that would be a crime too, but leaving the children in one of their own parent's custody where the parent has agreed to provide the custody in a healthy way, then there is no excuse for the child feeling "abandoned" except by the neglect or abuse by the so called custodial.

The law calls the children as "abandoned" when the children are left in the care and custody of one of the parents, where the parent is to provide the custody in a healthy way, and that is not "abandoned" as in a desert.

Therefore if any child under custody is being neglected of food or housing or feeling abandoned then that is a direct failure of providing the custody.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> Me- "I myself was abandoned by my own father at a young age and constantly questioned what I did to make him not love me or not want me. That is the difference."
> 
> You- "It is the custodial parent's job to teach the children to hold a high regard and honor their absent parent to prevent that from happening. So the job of custody was provided inadequately to you in that regard."
> 
> IMHO, that was directed to me. Please, if anyone sees otherwise, let me know...



That is fine if you apply it to yourself as I hope it enlightens you.

What you need to do is reconcile with your real father and find out what he has to say about the situation.

And even then the fathers often do not know how to express their own circumstances correctly because most people ignore the huge over ruling injustices forced onto families and onto parents by the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> Hmmmm, didn't I already clarify this? Father left, I felt abandoned; not that I used that term when I was a child, but feeling like you were left is the same freaking thing!! Kids feel that without anyone putting anything in their heads. Where do you get this stuff from??



It is the custodial's job to teach the child otherwise.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> Or when a young child goes through separation anxiety, they are fearful that the parent will be gone forever... that can start as early as 8 months.



It is the custodial's job to teach the child better than that.

.


----------



## beauty

lusby mom you are a liar.  You talk so much on here.  You are a joke.  I usually dont respond to your lies and I wont again but you are crazy.  You with hold your child from her dad.  You dont let him speak to her on the phone.  He has showed up...you arent there. He calls for hours and you dont answer.  Fathers day you had her hide behind a couch and pretend you werent home.  Dont cry poor mouth because you get your money if you didnt he would be in jail.  He has tried to show up you lie.  Halloween party at her school we were headed there and you called and said the child didnt go.. come to find out she did so it looked like he didnt show up.  You are manipulative.  Wednesday you call and say the child doesnt want to go but he never gets to speak to her.  His weekends you say she has tournaments and wont let her go.... its not your place.  He can take the child but you are control freak.  Lie on here all you want we know the truth and its easy to hide behind words! I hope writing lies helps you sleep better at night when you are the one hurting your child.


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> It is the custodial's job to teach the child better than that.
> 
> .



You missed the point. I was saying a child can feel abandoned without anyone putting that in their heads... ex: separation anxiety in an 8 month old.


----------



## LusbyMom

beauty said:


> lusby mom you are a liar.  You talk so much on here.  You are a joke.  I usually dont respond to your lies and I wont again but you are crazy.  You with hold your child from her dad.  You dont let him speak to her on the phone.  He has showed up...you arent there. He calls for hours and you dont answer.  Fathers day you had her hide behind a couch and pretend you werent home.  Dont cry poor mouth because you get your money if you didnt he would be in jail.  He has tried to show up you lie.  Halloween party at her school we were headed there and you called and said the child didnt go.. come to find out she did so it looked like he didnt show up.  You are manipulative.  Wednesday you call and say the child doesnt want to go but he never gets to speak to her.  His weekends you say she has tournaments and wont let her go.... its not your place.  He can take the child but you are control freak.  Lie on here all you want we know the truth and its easy to hide behind words! I hope writing lies helps you sleep better at night when you are the one hurting your child.



Say what you want you and JPC should hook up because you are no better than him. 

You want to bring out all kinds of  that isn't even true? 

Fact: Your husband is a deadbeat. Hence the 20 plus court dates for his failure to pay over the past few years. Which as you know he has not one but two coming up.  This is PUBLIC RECORD to anyone here is welcome to look it up and see that you are the liar. 

Do you really want to bring all the personal stuff out on a public forum? You truly are


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> You missed the point. I was saying a child can feel abandoned without anyone putting that in their heads... ex: separation anxiety in an 8 month old.



I do not deny that the children will have hard and uncomfortable feelings in these cases because parental separation is not a nice thing to happen.

But it is the place of the responsible adult to ease and sooth the children in such cases.

And to do it best than the parent (custodial) must not wait until the child comes crying or after the child has nightmares but start the process immediately after the other parent becomes separated from the child, by explaining the terms of the parent separation in an honorable way.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I do not deny that the children will have hard and uncomfortable feelings in these cases because parental separation is not a nice thing to happen.
> 
> But it is the place of the responsible adult to ease and sooth the children in such cases.
> 
> And to do it best than the parent (custodial) must not wait until the child comes crying or after the child has nightmares but start the process immediately after the other parent becomes separated from the child, by explaining the terms of the parent separation in an honorable way.
> 
> .



How would you have explained it to your son if you were the custodial? Tell us how you would have done so in an honorable way.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> That would be true if a child was dropped into a deserted place...


So, you agree then that a child can feel abandoned if the child is abandoned...

So, do you believe that a child does not need both parents?  

If the child only needs one parent, then having just that one parent is sufficient, as you say, and the other parent is simply a waste of that child's time to worry about, and the parent with primary physical placement would be right to not worry about whether the other parent has access to the child

If the child needs both parents, then not having something the child needs would lead to the child feeling abandoned if one parent chooses to not be around the child.


So, which is it - is it unnecessary for the child to have the other parent, or is it reasonable to understand the child would feel abandoned by a parent choosing to not be around in any way for the child?


----------



## Taeobi

VoteJP said:


> I do not deny that the children will have hard and uncomfortable feelings in these cases because parental separation is not a nice thing to happen.
> 
> But it is the place of the responsible adult to ease and sooth the children in such cases.
> 
> And to do it best than the parent (custodial) must not wait until the child comes crying or after the child has nightmares but start the process immediately after the other parent becomes separated from the child, by explaining the terms of the parent separation in an honorable way.
> 
> .



Even if a parent does all they can do before and after the child feels the separation from a parent, the child is still going to have their own thoughts and opinions on it. In some cases what you are saying can ease the child, but not all. Children have the ability to form their own opinions about a parent that is no longer involved, despite what anyone says.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> How would you have explained it to your son if you were the custodial? Tell us how you would have done so in an honorable way.



Instead of me guessing on an untrue event, then I would point out that the separated parents have the same duty to the child as does the custodial parents, in that I myself had to tell and explain it to my son except he was already 30 years old when I had my turn at it.

The custodial parents often make this mistake of believing they get to control the child's view of the other parent, and in most cases the child will some day seek out the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it is not a nice experience for parents that preach hateful stuff about the child's other parent.  

As to doing it in an honorable way, then it does have different applications in each family since we each must tell of our own business and about the other parent and the child as an adult has incredible power in such discussions.

The tricky thing about "honor" is that the child is to honor the parents, so that we parents in our discussions with the child are to help the child in that process.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Instead of me guessing on an untrue event, then* I would point out that the separated parents have the same duty to the child as does the custodial parents*, in that I myself had to tell and explain it to my son except he was already 30 years old when I had my turn at it.
> 
> The custodial parents often make this mistake of believing they get to control the child's view of the other parent, and in most cases the child will some day seek out the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it is not a nice experience for parents that preach hateful stuff about the child's other parent.
> 
> As to doing it in an honorable way, then it does have different applications in each family since we each must tell of our own business and about the other parent and the child as an adult has incredible power in such discussions.
> 
> The tricky thing about "honor" is that the child is to honor the parents, so that we parents in our discussions with the child are to help the child in that process.
> 
> .



So you admit the parents BOTH have the same duty to the child?


----------



## This_person

LusbyMom said:


> So you admit the parents BOTH have the same duty to the child?



He's always admitted that.  His belief has been, repeatedly, that the parent without physical placement (parent B) IS seeing to it that the child is properly taken care of as long as the child has the parent with physical placement (parent A).  As far as he's concerned, parent B meets all requirements by Parent A actually meeting the requirements, or, the welfare system, or, other family members, or, basically anyone _other than_ parent B.


----------



## LusbyMom

This_person said:


> He's always admitted that.  His belief has been, repeatedly, that the parent without physical placement (parent B) IS seeing to it that the child is properly taken care of as long as the child has the parent with physical placement (parent A).  As far as he's concerned, parent B meets all requirements by Parent A actually meeting the requirements, or, the welfare system, or, other family members, or, basically anyone _other than_ parent B.



 So because the NCP let the CP keep the child than the NCP has done his/her duty?


----------



## This_person

LusbyMom said:


> So because the NCP let the CP keep the child than the NCP has done his/her duty?



That's been his point in the past.  That's where his whole "the child has all of his/her needs met to overflowing" comes from, and, "if the custodial can't meet the requirements of the child, they should give the child to the NCP".


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> So you admit the parents BOTH have the same duty to the child?



Same duty to their child - yes, but not to the thieving Courts or to the unjust laws.

The Child Support and Custody laws interfere and violate the parental duties.

.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> Instead of me guessing on an untrue event,



It's not untrue - your son lived it.

How should your wife have handled it when you deserted them? Should she have lied? Or was telling him the truth the right thing to do?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Same duty to their child - yes, but not to the thieving Courts or to the unjust laws.
> 
> The Child Support and Custody laws interfere and violate the parental duties.


And, how does that NCP demonstrate that duty, Jimmy?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> So because the NCP let the CP keep the child than the NCP has done his/her duty?



I do not see it as fair or true to claim the separated parents "let" the custodial parents keep their child, because they do not have a true option since the law is improperly in the middle of the business.

But since one parent is taking the custody of the child then yes, the duty is filled in regard to providing the child's physical care.

If one does voluntarily gives the child to the other parent then that other parent needs to thank the one that gives, or else refuse to take the custody if they can not or do not want to provide the custody.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I do not see it as fair or true to claim the separated parents "let" the custodial parents keep their child, because they do not have a true option since the law is improperly in the middle of the business.
> 
> But since one parent is taking the custody of the child then yes, the duty is filled in regard to providing the child's physical care.
> 
> If one does voluntarily gives the child to the other parent then that other parent needs to thank the one that gives, or else refuse to take the custody if they can not or do not want to provide the custody.


There you go, LusbyMom.  You just can't make this #### up, can you?


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> I do not see it as fair or true to claim the separated parents "let" the custodial parents keep their child,
> .



Isn't that exactly what you did? Didn't you leave them so you could go drinking, drugging, and raping?


----------



## DipStick

MMDad said:


> Isn't that exactly what you did? Didn't you leave them so you could go drinking, drugging, and *raping*?



Do you have any proof of this, or are you talking out of your ass?


----------



## MMDad

DipStick said:


> Do you have any proof of this, or are you talking out of your ass?



If anyone knows ass it's you, punk. You're knuckle deep right now, aren't you?

Now go back to your classes at Mellwood. You are so close to graduating, if you'd just stop drinking the toilet water.


----------



## LusbyMom

This_person said:


> There you go, LusbyMom.  You just can't make this #### up, can you?



  That's ok my stalker is here and she can learn from this bozo and maybe they can all go spray paint together.


----------



## DipStick

DipStick said:


> Do you have any proof of this, or are you talking out of your ass?





MMDad said:


> If anyone knows ass it's you, punk. You're knuckle deep right now, aren't you?
> 
> Now go back to your classes at Mellwood. You are so close to graduating, if you'd just stop drinking the toilet water.



Yep, he was talking out of his ass.


----------



## MMDad

DipStick said:


> Yummy toilet water!


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I myself had to tell and explain it to my son except he was already 30 years old when I had my turn at it.


That's quite a load you dumped there, Jimmy.  As usual, you hold a peculiar perspective thinking you did not have a "turn" to explain yourself until he was 30.

Realistically, you knew exactly where he was and your wife would have granted full communication with him... if you had taken the time to seek it.  Certainly you had plenty of time to have fun traveling out West.  A greater example of a completely atrocious parent you could not be.




> The custodial parents often make this mistake of believing they get to control the child's view of the other parent, and in most cases the child will some day seek out the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it is not a nice experience for parents that preach hateful stuff about the child's other parent.


Now parents can not "control the child's view of the other parent"... even though you have simultaneously been telling us that CPs should be honorably representing the NCP regardless how dishonorable that parent has been.  Must be tough living in your world, where facts change in the wind.


----------



## Geruch

*Vote No, J.P. Cusick for Maryland Governor 2010*

"Winning as Governor would be a huge amount of work for me, 
and *I would be personally better off to lose the election*..."

Vote NO - J.P. Cusick, for Maryland Governor 2010

Baltimore Sun talk forum - View Single Post - JP for Governor of MD.



> On July 18, 2005, JPC,Sr. said, After years of paying child support and not paying some times, and my son turned 18, then I was still behind by some $27,000. arrears of c/s and *my mother asked the so-called custodial to forgive the debt.* Then the custodial went to the c/s enforcement office and closed my child support case. There was no public assistance. :arrow: My ego would never had asked for the case to be closed but mother did it just fine. :?: It is a win - win situation because it even gives the custodials the chance to finnally (sic) do the right thing.
> The Child Support Problem.





> VoteJP said "I have admitted that *I did not pay the arrears* and the case was closed by my deceased wife's second husband who himself died a short time later. I am greatful to the man and he did a noble act. If anyone does not like it that I satisfied the child support then surely he satisfied it for me. So it is still satisfied and case closed."
> http://forums.somd.com/elections/100415-cusick-vs-hoyer-8.html#post2092870





> VoteJP said, "I really have and still do admit that *I broke up my own marriage* and *I ruined my own family* and *I was not there for my son* in those times, and at that time I failed miserably."
> http://forums.somd.com/elections/100415-cusick-vs-hoyer-11.html#post2099562


A question that was ask, Who did your running mate assault? Did you meet him in jail?


> VoteJP said, *"I did meet Mr Lang in jail* and he is a trusted friend of mine.
> 
> I do know he had a "Destruction of Property" conviction based on him puncturing the tires on the Sheriff cruisers in the Sheriff parking lot, and Michael came to my house afterward and then he went down to the Sheriff Office and confessed to it. He does not have any felonies so he is eligible to be Governor in this election.
> 
> Mr Lang is my kind of Lieutenant." http://forums.somd.com/elections/190308-big-improvements-9.html#post3974765



Your campaign is nothing but a joke. All you are is, A lost soul craving for attention.
When a parent does not pay a Court order (as in child support). That makes you a DEADBEAT DAD ! <<


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



MMDad said:


> Isn't that exactly what you did? Didn't you leave them so you could go drinking, drugging, and raping?



I know you mean that seriously and sincerely, but I just got to report that I find it incredibly funny, and I have laughed over this ever since it was first posted.

In an odd way it is flattering that anyone would think of me in that way - as if I were some kind of Viking or Attila the Hun.

Just FYI.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



MMDad said:


> How should your wife have handled it when you deserted them? Should she have lied? Or was telling him the truth the right thing to do?



I do not want nor ask anyone to lie, and it is wrong to believe anything as honorable when it contains lies, so I never said nor meant to lie about anything.

Your kind of twisted slander and the laws parental degradations are not the "truth".

I do not tell parents specifically what to say or not to say to their own children, except that they need to teach respect and honor for both parents, and by dishonoring the other parent it damages the child and the dishonor will eventually fly back onto the one that preaches it.

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> In an odd way it is flattering that anyone would think of me in that way - as if I were some kind of Viking or Attila the Hun.


Odd to normal folks, but completely suitable for you.  If there is a wacked-out, absurd idea out there you are sure to be the first to jump on it... so congratulations for not failing to do so once again.   

The only remaining question is will you add alcohol/drug abuse and sexual offenses to your already-illustrious resumé, or instead rely on your status as Chief Deadbeat to give people enough reason to not vote for you?


----------



## chernmax

VoteJP said:


> It is not the same at all.
> 
> In Child Support a parents is put in jail simply for being poor which means the parents has done nothing to merit a crime and thereby guilty of nothing.
> 
> A person speeding is in fact physically doing a crime.
> 
> And in violent crimes like murder than the accused "Defendant" can argue that it was done in self defense, or the death was an accident, or some one else killed the person, or temporary insanity, and other forms of legal defense in a Court of law.
> 
> It is a huge big difference in c/s cases, and an unjust difference.



You are stealing from the taxpayers who are forced to pay to raise a child you had all the fun in making.  Why should we feel fuked also???


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



chernmax said:


> You are stealing from the taxpayers who are forced to pay to raise a child you had all the fun in making.  Why should we feel xxxxx also???



The taxpayers are NOT being forced to raise anyone's child just as the custodial parents are not being forced to raise their own children.

Just because ignorant people see children in a negative way as a burden and a liability than that does not make it true because it is not true.

And Public Assistance is a service provided or given to the needy and it is not some thing that is taken by the needy.

Our society gives Public Assistance freely to those that need it and qualify for it, and to take Public Assistance otherwise is against the law.

So your negative feelings are just based on your own hateful bigotry and nothing real.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I do not want nor ask anyone to lie, and it is wrong to believe anything as honorable when it contains lies, so I never said nor meant to lie about anything.
> 
> Your kind of twisted slander and the laws parental degradations are not the "truth".
> 
> I do not tell parents specifically what to say or not to say to their own children, except that they need to teach respect and honor for both parents, and by dishonoring the other parent it damages the child and the dishonor will eventually fly back onto the one that preaches it.


But, there are cases like yours, and your sons, where honesty to the child leads to at least one parent as being seen as dishonorable, since that's what you and your son and millions of others are.  :shrug:


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> If all you have to pay is $27 a week it's time to get off your ass and get a real job. If someone is that poor it's by their own choice.
> 
> Some parents may not be able to pay.. they could have an illness or medical condition that puts them out of work. That is a different situation than the deadbeats who refuse to pay. The ones that continue to go on and have more children when they can't even support the ones they already created. Or the ones who walk into court with gold chains on their necks and name brand clothes and shoes on their back. Or how about when they pull up in the Lexus? They are not poor they are deadbeats.



I just think this one needs repeating that the parents are deemed as guilty regardless of whatever they say because parents are viewed as liars and as deadbeats based on a preconceived slander.

The parents that do go to the thieving Courts are the most honest parents of them all, and the Courts do not believe the parents just as LM above accuses them all as a group.

When I myself first went to the Court right here in St. Mary's County then I intended to pay the Child Support and to do as the Court would order but instead I got put directly into jail, and I do not see any reason for any parent to go blindly before those legal thieves a second time. When I went back on my second time then I made certain the Court knew what I thought about their thievery that time as I was not going to be fooled twice.

Every person and every citizen needs to go to the Court one self because it is hard to believe such things without seeing it one self, and even then many turn like "LusbyMom" and just blame the parents instead of believing that in front of their eyes.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I intended to pay the Child Support and to do as the Court would order but instead I got put directly into jail


You paid, or you "intended to pay"?

If you paid, they would not have sent you to jail (what would be the reason?).  If you "intended to pay", why would anyone believe you?  You would have had to have already been SIGNIFICANTLY behind in payments to even be in court in the first place, so the evidence would have been that you clearly had no intention of paying.

It's that whole "reality" thing you have such a hard time grasping.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> You paid, or you "intended to pay"?
> 
> If you paid, they would not have sent you to jail (what would be the reason?).  If you "intended to pay", why would anyone believe you?  You would have had to have already been SIGNIFICANTLY behind in payments to even be in court in the first place, so the evidence would have been that you clearly had no intention of paying.
> 
> It's that whole "reality" thing you have such a hard time grasping.



All you ever do is attack the messenger while avoiding the message.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> All you ever do is attack the messenger while avoiding the message.
> 
> .



No, I'm attacking the message.  Your message was that even those parents who intend on paying go to jail, as evidenced by your situation.  I simply showed your situation could not, logically, have been what you were portraying, and thus made your point NOT a point.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I just think this one needs repeating that the parents are deemed as guilty regardless of whatever they say because parents are viewed as liars and as deadbeats based on a preconceived slander.
> 
> The parents that do go to the thieving Courts are the most honest parents of them all, and the Courts do not believe the parents just as LM above accuses them all as a group.
> 
> When I myself first went to the Court right here in St. Mary's County then I intended to pay the Child Support and to do as the Court would order but instead I got put directly into jail, and I do not see any reason for any parent to go blindly before those legal thieves a second time. When I went back on my second time then I made certain the Court knew what I thought about their thievery that time as I was not going to be fooled twice.
> 
> Every person and every citizen needs to go to the Court one self because it is hard to believe such things without seeing it one self, and even then many turn like "LusbyMom" and just blame the parents instead of believing that in front of their eyes.
> 
> .




It must have been a very long time since you had paid anything to be sent to jail. The courts give the NCP's plenty of time to pay CS. I know that for a fact. I know that a NCP can go an entire YEAR without paying a dime and still not go to jail. 

Like I said if you can walk into court with gold hanging off your neck and your knocked up GF with you than you can support your kid(s) you have already created. 

Sorry but as a parent I would do WHATEVER it took to see to it that my child has everything that they need.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> I do not want nor ask anyone to lie, and it is wrong to believe anything as honorable when it contains lies, so I never said nor meant to lie about anything.
> 
> Your kind of twisted slander and the laws parental degradations are not the "truth".
> 
> I do not tell parents specifically what to say or not to say to their own children, except that they need to teach respect and honor for both parents, and by dishonoring the other parent it damages the child and the dishonor will eventually fly back onto the one that preaches it.
> 
> .



You say that people shouldn't tell the kids that the parent deserted them. If you want to be a leader, you have to be ready to tell people what they should do.

What should a parent say to their kid when they ask why Daddy left, never writes, and never calls? How should they respond when the kid asks why Daddy doesn't love him any more?

If not the truth, what?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



MMDad said:


> You say that people shouldn't tell the kids that the parent deserted them. If you want to be a leader, you have to be ready to tell people what they should do.
> 
> What should a parent say to their kid when they ask why Daddy left, never writes, and never calls? How should they respond when the kid asks why Daddy doesn't love him any more?
> 
> If not the truth, what?



I would remind all that some one here referenced being deserted as in a "desert" because otherwise what many people and the law calls "desertion" and "abandonment" are simple untrue and exaggerated slanders.

As in this - a Man / father / Dad leaves his child or children in a nice home with plenty of food and all their needs provided in full, and even left in the loving care of the child's own mother and yet that is the definition of 'abandon" and "desertion" and that is the big lie.

So you and the law calls it the "truth" to preach those kind of lies to the children and you are wrong for doing it.

There are never any real desertion or abandonment of any children in the USA because there are resources and provisions overflowing for any child in need, so the legal slander is just that it is legal slander.

And when a parent (the Mom or Dad) leaves or is absent then it is the job of the custodial and of the child to do the letter writing and the phone calls and the visitations, because that is the job of custody to fill the child's family needs.

Custody means taking the child from one of their parents, and so keeping the child in a healthy relationship with the absent parent is part of the job of custody.

Many if not most Custodial Parents fail in this regard and blaming the dysfunction on the absent parent is another lie.

This thing of demanding Child Support and failing to honor the separated parent is a big reason that we have many dysfunctional children growing up with a twisted and unhealthy perspective.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I would remind all that some one here referenced being deserted as in a "desert" because otherwise what many people and the law calls "desertion" and "abandonment" are simple untrue and exaggerated slanders.
> 
> As in this - a Man / father / Dad leaves his child or children in a nice home with plenty of food and all their needs provided in full, and even left in the loving care of the child's own mother and yet that is the definition of 'abandon" and "desertion" and that is the big lie.So you are saying that a child doesn't need their father in their lives because they have everything they need already right?
> 
> So you and the law calls it the "truth" to preach those kind of lies to the children and you are wrong for doing it.
> 
> There are never any real desertion or abandonment of any children in the USA because there are resources and provisions overflowing for any child in need, so the legal slander is just that it is legal slander.
> 
> And when a parent (the Mom or Dad) leaves or is absent then it is the job of the custodial and of the child to do the letter writing and the phone calls and the visitations, because that is the job of custody to fill the child's family needs.So who should your son's mother have called? Didn't you go MIA? Who should she have dropped your son off with for visitation?
> 
> Custody means taking the child from one of their parents, and so keeping the child in a healthy relationship with the absent parent is part of the job of custody.
> 
> Many if not most Custodial Parents fail in this regard and blaming the dysfunction on the absent parent is another lie.
> 
> This thing of demanding Child Support and failing to honor the separated parent is a big reason that we have many dysfunctional children growing up with a twisted and unhealthy perspective.
> 
> .




I can't even read your nonsense anymore. You contradict yourself and you are straight up warped in your head.


----------



## Geruch

*James P. Cusick Sr. History*

Married in 1976 - JP Cusick age 20 yo

Had a son in 4-1977 - JP Cusick age 21 yo

Separated 1981 son is approx. 4 yo, JP Cusick Sr. age 25  

Divorced 1983, son is approx 6 yo JP Cusick Sr. age 27 

According to court records: 

Offense Date: 12/02/1983 < You were in Md at that time. 
Charges: Cds Manufacture/Distribute-Narcotic - Cdsossess-Not Marihuana
Indictment 4/12/84 - Disposition: Dismissed - 2/09/2001

Left town sometime in 1984, Traveled and he bounced from job to job in  Florida, 
Lousiana, Texas, Arizona,Nevada, California, Wyoming, Illionois, New York. 

Returned to St. Mary's County 1992. Age 36 - Were gone approx. 9 years

Did you have a job in 1992 & 1993 maybe, maybe not ?

First time incarceration 3 months for child support in 1994 age 38

Did you have a job in 1995, Maybe, maybe not ? 

Unemployed since mid 1996, age 40

Again incarcerated 6 months for child support in 1997 age 41

Offense Date: 08/06/1997 - Charges: TRESPAS PUB AGNCY AFTER HR  
Got out of Jail: 12/12/1997 - Credit Time Served: 129 days

Offense Date: 1/04/1998 - Charges: MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300
Plea: Guilty - Jail Term: 18 Months - Disposition Date:01/14/1998

Offense Date: 4/16/1999 - Charges: MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300
Plea: Guilty - Jail Term: 14 months - Disposition Date:09/30/1999
Credit Time Served: 168 days

Offense Date: 4/12/2000 - Charges: MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300
Put in Jail: 07/03/2000 - Plea: Guilty - Still In Jail 1/16/2001 - JURY TRIAL PRAYED

01/17/2001 09:00 Jury Trial - Jail Term: 3 years - 
Credit Time Served: 198 days
Amount:$1200.00 - Judgment Type:Restitution

You been in and out of Jail between 1997 - 2003 age 47
You were mostly in jail then you were out of jail.

JP Cusick gets some public assistance of rent, food, some cash, and more.


----------



## Geruch

*JP Cusick for Governor of Maryland 2010 - Vote No*

No matter how you slice it or twist it. You're a dead-beat and a deserter.

You were never in your son's life after the divorce. If so it was only for a brief period.
Truth is you have no idea what it takes to raise a child (ren) or what it takes to be a father.

At least your ex wife Darlene found someone that really cared about her and her son.
It's a shame that she lost her battle with cancer and then her husband passed.
Your son lost the two most important people in his life at a young age.

You certainly haven't proved that your trust worthly. It's just the opposite.

People read your message. Some people don't agree with it. That's their right.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> So you are saying that a child doesn't need their father in their lives because they have everything they need already right?



Of course not, as I say the children do need both their real biological parents in their lives, and the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws do the opposite in dividing the families and alienate the children from their parents.

It is those that put the price-tag on children and on parenting that have done wrong, as only wanting money instead of a family unit.



LusbyMom said:


> So who should your son's mother have called? Didn't you go MIA? Who should she have dropped your son off with for visitation?



Some times there is no way of communicating and at those times then one must wait and prepare for the time to come.

The children need to be taught right even when the parents are not right.



LusbyMom said:


> I can't even read your nonsense anymore. You contradict yourself and you are straight up warped in your head.



I do contradict others, and I contradict the law, and rightly so.

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> It is those that put the price-tag on children and on parenting


You have admitted that you did, for a time, pay your own CS, so you know raising children is not free.  I am not sure if you keep repeating this point simply so you can see yourself    or if it is due to your obvious drug-induced disconnection from reality.



> Some times there is no way of communicating and at those times then one must wait and prepare for the time to come.


You had 25 years to communicate with Jr.  How nice for you that you were able to fill your time "waiting" with traveling and having a grand time out West.



> The children need to be taught right even when the parents are not right.


Ah, you can admit that some parents "are not right"!  So, again, how is the custodial supposed to teach a child that the other parent is honorable when, even in your words, they are not?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> So, again, how is the custodial supposed to teach a child that the other parent is honorable when, even in your words, they are not?



It is NOT to teach that the parents are honorable - no, it is to honor thy father and mother regardless of the parents' status or qualifications.

It does not matter what the parent is - but how the child is taught to act.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> It is NOT to teach that the parents are honorable - no, it is to honor thy father and mother regardless of the parents' status or qualifications.
> 
> It does not matter what the parent is - but how the child is taught to act.
> 
> .



Being honored and respected is EARNED


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> Being honored and respected is EARNED



Perhaps so, but that is not the equation.

To GIVE honor and respect is a person's duty to give, and then that makes it is as an honor to receive. 

There is no way to "earn" respect or honor from those that do not freely give it.

That is why such behavior is seen as a virtue.

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> There is no way to "earn" respect or honor from those that do not freely give it.


I've seen lots of people do it, practically millions.   :shrug:

Giving respect and honor away, even to those who mistreat you, devalues the whole point.  And it would allow you and your lazy, abandoning parent friends to be even worse, knowing that their child would respect them no matter how little they (the parent) cared for the kid.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> I've seen lots of people do it, practically millions.   :shrug:



No, you have it confused with the very common submission and servitude which are usually based in fear or force.

I am referring to filial duty between a parent and their offspring as like an animal attribute, link HERE, but more-so in humans. 



hvp05 said:


> Giving respect and honor away, even to those who mistreat you, devalues the whole point.



No, that is the point.

It is the message behind "love thy enemies" and "turn the other cheek" which is the hard way of virtue. 

What you describe is the popular way of kiss-up to those viewed as superior and to kick-down at those deemed unworthy or inferior.



hvp05 said:


> And it would allow you and your lazy, abandoning parent friends to be even worse, knowing that their child would respect them no matter how little they (the parent) cared for the kid.



I realize that you along with our laws cut-down parents very easily and freely because that is the way of self righteous brutes.

My point is not about punishing or rewarding the parents as it is about raising healthy children.

The ignorant Child Support and Custody laws interferes and violates the psychological health of the children and their parents. 

.


----------



## Geruch

As a child we are taught how to respect other people and what it mean's to honor someone.

Child learn, right from wrong. Child learn what is acceptable and what isn't. 
Child learn, what is good behaviour and bad behaviour. Child learn that we don't praise bad behaviour.
Child learn, they are held accountable for their own action's. It's our action's that speak louder then our words. 

A person action's can said a lot about a person true character. 
Whether or not that person deserves to be respected or honor.

You can respect your parents and you can even forgive them for their mistakes.
But that doesn't mean the child will honor their parents. Honor is not givin freely.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I realize that you along with our laws cut-down parents very easily and freely because that is the way of self righteous brutes.
> 
> My point is not about punishing or rewarding the parents as it is about raising healthy children.
> 
> The ignorant Child Support and Custody laws interferes and violates the psychological health of the children and their parents.



  What you know about raising healthy children?

When are parents going to be responsible for their own action? 
The parents are responsible for the psychological health of their children. 

I think blaming the Child Support and Custody Laws is a cop-out.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> What you know about raising healthy children?
> 
> When are parents going to be responsible for their own action?
> The parents are responsible for the psychological health of their children.
> 
> I think blaming the Child Support and Custody Laws is a cop-out.



The thing is that your own words are contradictory.

It is as if you do not know what "responsibility" means, because if it is the parents' own responsibility then the rest of us need to get the heck out of their business and let the parents do it all themselves - but no. Instead you and the laws jump into the middle of the families and start giving harsh and inhuman orders that violate the family and alienates the children and that directly destroys the "responsibility" of the parents in doing their own parenting.

If it truly were regarded as "the parents' own responsibility" then the law would not be interfering with that.

If we get the busy-body citizens and the intrusive Gov out of the  promoting and empowering divorce and separation business then the parents and families could work out their own problems, and rightly so.

.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The thing is that your own words are contradictory.
> 
> It is as if you do not know what "responsibility" means, because if it is the parents' own responsibility then the rest of us need to get the heck out of their business and let the parents do it all themselves - but no. Instead you and the laws jump into the middle of the families and start giving harsh and inhuman orders that violate the family and alienates the children and that directly destroys the "responsibility" of the parents in doing their own parenting.
> 
> If it truly were regarded as "the parents' own responsibility" then the law would not be interfering with that.
> 
> If we get the busy-body citizens and the intrusive Gov out of the  promoting and empowering divorce and separation business then the parents and families could work out their own problems, and rightly so.



Say what you will. It's just your opinion. That's your right.  But I don't agree with your logic and I never will. 

If two grown people could work out their own problems. Then there would be nobody getting a divorce.
And that's were it all starts. Two people that can't work it out and they end up getting a divorce.

The thing that makes it hard for the children is that their Parents are getting a divorce.
All they know is that, Mommy will live here and Daddy will be living somewhere else. 
Sometimes the children feel that their at fault. They feel like they did something wrong.

Your logic is that, You think when the parent separate or divorce. That their going to do the right thing and 
financially support their child(ren) on their own. Just as they did when they was living in the home. 

But the truth is that, Sometimes that doesn't happen. When it don't, 
that's when the other parent seeks out help through the legal system.

*As in your own case.* The laws didn't make you run to other states. You made the decision to move out of state. You called it traveling but you knew as long as they couldn't fine you. You wouldn't have to pay child support. What better way to do that then travel state to state. Never staying at once place to long. Going from job to job.

You Separated 1981, your son was 4yo., You left state when your son was around 6yo. 
You waited until your son was almost 18 to come back. *WHY ? *:shrug:

From the records and what you already stated yourself. I'm sure if your ex-wife was alive. 
Her story would be much different then yours. I don't doubt that for a min.

You want to do away with child support laws and custody laws. I don't agree with it.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> You think when the parent separate or divorce. That their going to do the right thing and financially support their child(ren) on their own. Just as they did when they was living in the home.



The thing is that you as does the law only wants and only seeks to steal the money and to steal as much money as can be stolen.

There is no real regard in the thieving Child Support for the health of the children and nothing in regard any real need or to the human duties of the parents.

The only regard of thieves is to steal, and to steal more and more.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> There is no real regard in the thieving Child Support for the health of the children and nothing in regard any real need or to the human duties of the parents.


Well, except for the part that talks about who provides health insurance, etc.  So, other than reality, you're right on the first point.

And, since it's all about the duty of each parent, you're right on the second point, too, if it just weren't for that reality part.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> Well, except for the part that talks about who provides health insurance, etc.  So, other than reality, you're right on the first point.
> 
> And, since it's all about the duty of each parent, you're right on the second point, too, if it just weren't for that reality part.



I realize that people like you see stealing as profitable, and in some ways it is since stealing money gives one more stolen profits.

But the ill-gotten-gain will curse you and everyone that touches it.

Even here on this board you are reduced to a petty defense of thievery.

.


----------



## Bay_Kat

It's really hard to take someone like JPC seriously when he obviously doesn't have a problem with terrorists, illegals, sex offenders and dead beat dads, just to name a few.  There is no way this guy could be serious about running for governor.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Bay_Kat said:


> It's really hard to take someone like JPC seriously when he obviously doesn't have a problem with terrorists, illegals, sex offenders and dead beat dads, just to name a few.  There is no way this guy could be serious about running for governor.



The fact is that I offer real live solutions instead of wallowing in the problems.

.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The thing is that you as does the law only wants and only seeks to steal the money and to steal as much money as can be stolen.
> There is no real regard in the thieving Child Support for the health of the children and nothing in regard any real need or to the human duties of the parents. The only regard of thieves is to steal, and to steal more and more.


 
I'm sorry but as a male, I don't feel my money is being stolen. As a father it's my obligation to help out. 
Hell, I was supporting my children before the divorce. Why shouldn't I support them after my divorce? 
I also provide health insurance, just like I did when I was married. Only thing that's change is that I got remarried.
I think you would be happy if no one would pay child support. You would encourage them to go to Social Services for help.

I realize that you were only 20 when you got married. Ever think you got married to young?


----------



## Geruch

*JP Cusick for Governor of Maryland 2010-Vote No*



Bay_Kat said:


> It's really hard to take someone like JPC seriously when he obviously doesn't have a problem with terrorists, illegals, sex offenders and dead beat dads, just to name a few.  There is no way this guy could be serious about running for governor.



I don't believe he's serious either. Especially with a comment like this.

*" And I did have the ability and the know how to construct explosives and I chose spray paint instead. "*

Baltimore Sun talk forum - JP Cusick for Governor of Maryland 2010.

Or this comment

*" My biggest and best accomplishment was the day I decided to spray paint 
the St. Mary's County Circuit Court. "*

Seem like something a child would say or someone that has a few screws loose.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I realize that people like you see stealing as profitable, and in some ways it is since stealing money gives one more stolen profits.
> 
> But the ill-gotten-gain will curse you and everyone that touches it.
> 
> Even here on this board you are reduced to a petty defense of thievery.


Where did I speak of theft?  I spoke directly to your assertions (which were wrong in the world of reality).


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> But the ill-gotten-gain will curse you and everyone that touches it.
> 
> Even here on this board you are reduced to a petty defense of thievery.


So Jimmy, what do you believe is the point of stealing all that loot?  Do you think the politicians are keeping it?  Is that the real reason why you want to become a politician?




VoteJP said:


> The fact is that I offer real live solutions for the terrorists, illegals, deadbeat parents, and other criminals instead of wallowing in the problems.


I fixed the part you left out.  Honest mistake on your part, I'm sure.


----------



## This_person

This_person said:


> You paid, or you "intended to pay"?
> 
> If you paid, they would not have sent you to jail (what would be the reason?).  If you "intended to pay", why would anyone believe you?  You would have had to have already been SIGNIFICANTLY behind in payments to even be in court in the first place, so the evidence would have been that you clearly had no intention of paying.
> 
> It's that whole "reality" thing you have such a hard time grasping.



Jimmy, you answered this with a personal attack on me instead of answering the questions asked.  Please answer - did you actually provide the money and were still thrown in jail, or did you think promising you would pay later would be good enough when you were so far behind already as to be brought to court?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> I'm sorry but as a male, I don't feel my money is being stolen. As a father it's my obligation to help out.
> Hell, I was supporting my children before the divorce. Why shouldn't I support them after my divorce?
> I also provide health insurance, just like I did when I was married. Only thing that's change is that I got remarried.



That means you did not and do not need any Court orders or any Court involvement, and that has been my point all along - that the Courts are intrusive and the laws violate the family and it needs to be stopped and the Courts do not belong in the parenting business.

Unfortunately we know that yours is a self righteous claim, as in you claim to be a wonderful loving parent while at the same time you denounce other parents as unworthy and as "deadbeats" and as less than your superior self.

What I do is give full credit to all parents, and that we need to stop the "parenting police" and stop turning parents into criminals.

The thing that makes so you do NOT see other parents as loving their own children too - is a dysfunction based in your own vanity and conceit. 



Geruch said:


> I think you would be happy if no one would pay child support. You would encourage them to go to Social Services for help.



Social Services and Public Assistance are meant for citizens in need and that qualify and then yes I highly recommend it to anyone in need.



Geruch said:


> I realize that you were only 20 when you got married. Ever think you got married to young?



I did many severe things wrong and stupid in those times, and I do regret my own stupid and wrong deeds, but I am forever happy that I met her and married her and having our son.

It gets complicated when we look back and guess at the things that could have been.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> Jimmy, you answered this with a personal attack on me instead of answering the questions asked.  Please answer - did you actually provide the money and were still thrown in jail, or did you think promising you would pay later would be good enough when you were so far behind already as to be brought to court?



Since the Court refused to accept my side, and it does not matter to me what you think or say about it, then I surely am not going to argue my case here over some 25 years later.

The point is irrelevant, and I made my point most effectively as I spray painted that Court House with the rightful words of "*Child Support is legalized thievery*" and "*Thou shalt not steal*", and at first is was spray painted in green.

.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That means you did not and do not need any Court orders or any Court involvement, and that has been my point all along - that the Courts are intrusive and the laws violate the family and it needs to be stopped and the Courts do not belong in the parenting business.



Courts look out for the children. When a court order is in place for child support. As long as the non-custodial parent is paying it, then one doesn't have to worry about going to jail. Courts only get more involved when a non-custodial parent doesn't pay child support. It takes a long while before they put someone in jail for non support. As in your own case. 

Parenting and financially supporting your child is two different things. At least it is for me.
Parenting is the emotional side, it has nothing to do with money.



VoteJP said:


> Unfortunately we know that yours is a self righteous claim, as in you claim to be a wonderful loving parent while at the same time you denounce other parents as unworthy and as "deadbeats" and as less than your superior self.
> 
> What I do is give full credit to all parents, and that we need to stop the "parenting police" and stop turning parents into criminals.
> 
> The thing that makes so you do NOT see other parents as loving their own children too - is a dysfunction based in your own vanity and conceit.


Yes, I do look down on some parents. When they don't want to provide half of the financial responsibility for the care of their child/ren. If most did that, then we wouldn't need the "parenting police" as you call it.

I NEVER said, That parents that didn't pay child support don't love their children. 



VoteJP said:


> Social Services and Public Assistance are meant for citizens in need and that qualify and then yes I highly recommend it to anyone in need.



Social Services/ Public Assistance is one in the same. As least where I come from. It's called, Department of Social Services (DSS) where you can receive Public Assistance. As in, Food Stamps, Medical Cards, Daycare Vouchers, etc.

For you, It's all about. "I'm not giving that B*tch any child support money." 
She can go get Public Assistance, that's what their there for.

You said, The child has everything they need and overflowing. "So What"
That not a excuse for not supporting your child financially.

When a non-custodial parent doesn't pay support. Then sometimes the custodial parent are left with no choice but to seek public assistances. That's basicaly forcing the custodial parents to go for help. 

For you, It's all about the non-custodial parent shouldn't have to support their child financially. Because the child has what they need and it's overflowing. Because it's all being provided for by the custodial. Basically the child needs nothing. If the custodial parent can't provide for their child 100%. Then they should give the child to the non-custodial parent.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Since the Court refused to accept my side, and it does not matter to me what you think or say about it, then I surely am not going to argue my case here over some 25 years later.
> 
> The point is irrelevant, and I made my point most effectively as I spray painted that Court House with the rightful words of "*Child Support is legalized thievery*" and "*Thou shalt not steal*", and at first is was spray painted in green.


I think most can figure out how and why your case turn out the way it did. 

You left in early part of 84' and didn't come back in 92'.< According to records and what you said.
Most likely you didn't pay any child support during that time. So you got behind. 
Your most likely thinking, Why should I ? Since your ex wife got remarried. 
You most likely had very little contact with your son, until he was about 30 yo.

You did what some children would do. Vandalize some buildings by spray painting your message.

Your actions say a lot about your character. 

Your running mate has also been charge with destruction of property.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> Courts look out for the children.



The Courts are meant to look after crimes and criminal, and not children and parents.

The Courts are way out of line.



Geruch said:


> When a court order is in place for child support. As long as the non-custodial parent is paying it, then one doesn't have to worry about going to jail. Courts only get more involved when a non-custodial parent doesn't pay child support. It takes a long while before they put someone in jail for non support. As in your own case.



That is the same equation if a robber puts a gun out and says to give over the money or get shot.

A thief is a thief even if it is a jail mis-used to steal the money instead of a gun.



Geruch said:


> Parenting and financially supporting your child is two different things. At least it is for me.
> Parenting is the emotional side, it has nothing to do with money.



That has been my point that the children need their parents and not the stolen money taken by force from the children's parents.

You try to play both sides as if you and the law are some kind of "Robin Hood" that steals from the rich and helps the poor, but the Child Support is just thievery.



Geruch said:


> Then sometimes the custodial parent are left with no choice but to seek public assistances. That's basically forcing the custodial parents to go for help.



They could consider getting married to other parent of the child - duh. 



Geruch said:


> For you, It's all about the non-custodial parent shouldn't have to support their child financially. Because the child has what they need and it's overflowing. Because it's all being provided for by the custodial. Basically the child needs nothing. If the custodial parent can't provide for their child 100%. Then they should give the child to the non-custodial parent.



That is very correct.

Amen.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Since the Court refused to accept my side,


The court refused to accept your payment of money?  The whole point of the court date was for you to pay, and they refused your payment?  Wow, you should really have turned that judge in for derelection of duty.

Or, more probably, you didn't really try to pay any money, just to offer empty promises as evidenced by the money you were already behind.





> The point is irrelevant, and I made my point most effectively as I spray painted that Court House with the rightful words of "*Child Support is legalized thievery*" and "*Thou shalt not steal*", and at first is was spray painted in green.


I agree that was a very effective job by you - why, look at all the change it caused.

Oh, wait.....


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The Courts are meant to look after crimes and criminal, and not children and parents.


Those would be the criminal courts.  The domestic or family courts look after domestic and family issues.

YW





> That is the same equation if a robber puts a gun out and says to give over the money or get shot.


You think it's your duty to pay a robber?  Why?

Because, you've repeatedly said that you know it is a parent's responsibility to care for their child, so how is it similar to pay a robber and pay for your child unless you feel that same obligation to a robber?





> That has been my point that the children need their parents and not the stolen money taken by force from the children's parents.


One of the many things that children need from both parents is support.  When one parent, say for example you or your son, chooses to not support their child, they are neglecting that child by not meeting the needs of their child.





> They could consider getting married to other parent of the child - duh.


Or, the other parent of the child could consider paying his/her portion of the costs of child rearing - duh.


----------



## Geruch

Geruch said:


> For you, It's all about the *non-custodial parent shouldn't have to support their child financially.* Because the child has what they need and it's overflowing. Because it's all being provided for by the custodial. Basically the child needs nothing. If the custodial parent can't provide for their child 100%. Then they should give the child to the non-custodial parent.





VoteJP said:


> That is very correct.
> 
> Amen.



Just what I expected you to say. Your only looking out for your own financial well being. 
You only consider it stealing / thievery because you didn't want to contribute any financial support.
It went against everything you believe in. Once divorce that's where the buck stops.

Like I said before.


Geruch said:


> For you, It's all about. "I'm not giving that B*tch any child support money."
> She can go get Public Assistance, that's what their there for.



I happen to see things from both side. I feel non custodial parents should contribute some of the financial support. 
But you on the other hand see things only from one side. The non-custodial side.  You feel that, No non-custodial parent should have to contribute financial support for their child. You made that perfectly clear.

Whether or not, the Custodial parent can or can't provide 100% of the financial support for the child. 
That doesn't give the non-custodial the right to not contribute some financial support for the child.

*If child support wasn't court order. Would you have given finanacial support to be use towards your child. 
Would you have done that voluntarily?*

The Court I'm speaking of is Family Court, not criminal court. As it is the Family Courts that deal with such issues.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> *If child support wasn't court order. Would you have given financial support to be use towards your child.
> Would you have done that voluntarily?*



It makes no difference in the need for reform, but I did do that as I left my son in safe hands and well provided to overflowing. 

It was later that the thieving Child Support laws interfered.

And it makes no difference because that is the way it is in every case - that the children are all well provided already and no need for the Court to get involved.



Geruch said:


> The Court I'm speaking of is Family Court, not criminal court. As it is the Family Courts that deal with such issues.



The point I was making and still maintain, is that Courts are meant to be for crimes and for criminals and NOT about family police or parenting police or the alienation of children as it does now.

Calling it a "Family Court" makes it more of a wrong and not less.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> It makes no difference in the need for reform, but I did do that as I left my son in safe hands and well provided to overflowing.


I'll bet that's not how he saw it.

And, even if he did, YOU did not provide for him, others did.  You relinquished your responsibility for, and thus your rights to expect anything from or about, your son.





> And it makes no difference because that is the way it is in every case - that the children are all well provided already and no need for the Court to get involved.


Who provides for them?

If it's taxpayers, the court has the right to get involved to protect said taxpayers.





> The point I was making and still maintain, is that Courts are meant to be for crimes and for criminals and NOT about family police or parenting police or the alienation of children as it does now.


If you're referring to the criminal courts, you're correct.

If you're referring to domestic court, you are incorrect.





> Calling it a "Family Court" makes it more of a wrong and not less.


Why?  Reality difficult for you?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> You relinquished your responsibility for, and thus your rights to expect anything from or about, your son.



You see it that way because you are immoral, as you preach the violation of families and the alienation of children from their parents.

Just like the Courts and the laws - you have no business violating other people's families.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> You see it that way because you are immoral, as you preach the violation of families and the alienation of children from their parents.
> 
> Just like the Courts and the laws - you have no business violating other people's families.


Not at all - this is what YOU preach.  When you say that a parent with primary physical placement should either provide 100% or relinquish their kids to the other parent....this is exactly what preach.  You relinquished your rights as a parent because you refused to actively, personally accept the responsibilities as a parent.

I don't preach violation of families nor alienation of children from their parents.  I fully believe that both the parent with physical placement and the other parent are equal partners 100% each in raising their kids.  That means emotionally, financially, and physically being there for the kids.  YOU preach just the opposite of that.


----------



## hvp05

This_person said:


> When you say that a parent with primary physical placement should either provide 100% or relinquish their kids to the other parent....this is exactly what preach.  You relinquished your rights as a parent because you refused to actively, personally accept the responsibilities as a parent.


And everything he believes is immoral.  Seems to me that it all fits together nicely.  I wonder if he will get the point.*







* Last statement being purely rhetorical, a joke really.


----------



## Geruch

James P. Cusick Sr, You have no right to call someone immoral because someone doesn't agree with your views.
As most parents love and care very deeply for their child/ren. They don't walk away when times get tough.



VoteJP said:


> It makes no difference in the need for reform, but I did do that as I left my son in safe hands and well provided to overflowing. It was later that the thieving Child Support laws interfered. And it makes no difference because that is the way it is in every case - that the children are all well provided already and no need for the Court to get involved.



It does matter, Your bias interferes with the ability to be impartial.
Did you terminate your parental rights? I believe you said No. 
You had a financial obiligation to support your child. Which you Did Not .....
You expected Public Assistance to step in. When you turn your back on your own child.  

You continue to think it should *ALL* fall on the parent that has custody. Of course anyone that has custody and loves their child. Is going to do what they can to provide for the child. You was gone all them years, going state to state. You had no clue to what your son had or if he needed something. 

You lack the integrity to make good judgement. For you it's all about Not Paying Child Support, Not reforming
Parents are legally responsible for their children until they reach the age of majority (usually eighteen).

*What year was the child support court order?* 



VoteJP said:


> The point I was making and still maintain, is that Courts are meant to be for crimes and for criminals and NOT about family police or parenting police or the alienation of children as it does now.
> 
> Calling it a "Family Court" makes it more of a wrong and not less.



Actually I was wrong. It's not called "Family Court".  The proper name is "Circuit Court Family Divisions"

Circuit Court Family Divisions and Family Services Programs
St. Mary's Circuit Court - Family Services

"In 1998, the Maryland Judiciary was given the responsibility of overseeing the Family Divisions and Family Services Program with an initiative by the legislature.  Maryland circuit courts have initiated comprehensive services to benefit families entering the court system."

Maryland's circuit courts have developed special case management procedures for family law cases. There are family divisions in each of its five largest jurisdictions, and family services programs in the remaining 19 counties.

Family Laws cover a lot of different issues. Such as, Marriage, Divorce, Child Custody, Child Support, 
Adoption, Child Abuse, Foster Care, Grandparent Visitation and Custody Rights, Just to name a few.  

Your delusional if you think we don't need Circuit Court Family Divisions.
The judge can be impartial when the parents can't. It's all about the child.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> YOU preach.       ....this is exactly what preach.  You relinquished your
> 
> I don't preach   YOU preach ....



My plan is working out just fine - in fact it is working out great.

And your time is running out.



.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> My plan is working out just fine - in fact it is working out great.
> 
> And your time is running out.
> 
> 
> 
> .



My time is running out?  Why, because November will be here in just a few months and you'll disappear in a drug induced haze again?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> My time is running out?  Why, because November will be here in just a few months and you'll disappear in a drug induced haze again?



I do appreciate your confidence that I will breeze through the September primary into the November General election.

And your time certainly is not my time so lets not get the two confused.



.


----------



## Geruch

I doubt your make it pass the September primary. 

You seem to forget that there are others running for Governor of Maryland. 

The people of Maryland deserve someone way better then you.

You plan on having a Debate with the other candidates ?

I take it you don't want to address my earlier post. Figures


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> I doubt your make it pass the September primary.
> 
> You seem to forget that there are others running for Governor of Maryland.



I am counting on the other candidates splitting their voters with their votes and that leaves me an advantage. 



Geruch said:


> The people of Maryland deserve someone way better then you.



It is a mistake to judge persons instead of platforms, as that is another way of attacking the messenger while avoiding the message.

It would be easy to view O'Malley as a better person than I am, but his political policies are horrible.

I am the only candidate that will effectively challenge and end the injustices done to families across the State.



Geruch said:


> You plan on having a Debate with the other candidates ?



I do not have any fixed plans - but it is possible as it might happen.



Geruch said:


> I take it you don't want to address my earlier post. Figures



I read your postings and I just do not see anything for me to address.

You preach a big-daddy gov involved in family business through the Courts and I want it severely cut back.

So be it.

.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> It is a mistake to judge persons instead of platforms, as that is another way of attacking the messenger while
> avoiding the message. It would be easy to view O'Malley as a better person than I am, but his political policies are
> horrible.
> 
> You preach a big-daddy gov involved in family business through the Courts and I want it severely cut back.



Ohhhhh I been reading your platform message for the pass few years now. 

Like I said before, "You continue to think it should ALL fall on the parent that has custody."
Your all for a parent going on Welfare, going to churches and family to support the child. 
As long as the father of the child doesn't have to pay child support. That's all you care about.
With you, It's all about the money and not about the child. At least that's the way I see it.

I really do believe that, You lack the integrity to make good judgements for the people of Maryland. 
In case you didn't know, People that run for office are hold to a higher standard. 

Your platform is against everything that I believe in and was taught.
A man takes care of his children. If that's preaching big government, then so be it.

You said, "I deserted to let them figure it out." You deserted your ex-wife and child.
You said, Even your own son doesn't agree with your point of view. So what's that tell you?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I do appreciate your confidence that I will breeze through the September primary into the November General election.


Don't delude yourself any further than you already are 

You simply hang around until after the election either way.





> And your time certainly is not my time so lets not get the two confused.


I wasn't confused, but I noted that you did not answer my question - why is my time limited?  To what is it limited?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> Like I said before, "You continue to think it should ALL fall on the parent that has custody."
> Your all for a parent going on Welfare, going to churches and family to support the child.
> As long as the father of the child doesn't have to pay child support. That's all you care about.
> With you, It's all about the money and not about the child. At least that's the way I see it.



Actually it is the Child Support system that is all about the money, and only about the money - and not I.

I am for marriage, and for both parents working out their child rearing by their own efforts, and to me it is irrelevant if the child is on welfare or in a luxurious mansion.

The money is what makes so there is no care about the families being broken, and parents being criminalized, and children being alienated.

The Child Support is the thing stealing the money but then you blame that on me and on separated parents instead of blaming the thieves.

.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Actually it is the Child Support system that is all about the money, and only about the money - and not I.
> 
> I am for marriage, and for both parents working out their child rearing by their own efforts, and to me it is irrelevant if the child is on welfare or in a luxurious mansion. The money is what makes so there is no care about the families being broken, and parents being criminalized, and children being alienated.
> 
> The Child Support is the thing stealing the money but then you blame that on me and on separated parents instead of blaming the thieves.



You get married, You screw a woman, You have a baby, You have to take care of that child.
You can't just turn you back and expect other's to financially take care of the child for you.

You say your for marriages and parents working it out among themselves. How you purpose they do that? 

People that want to get a divorce are doing that one their own free will. 

You can't stand it because the laws are holding non-custodial parents financially accountable.

Your platform doesn't hold the non-custodial parent accountable for anything.
It holds everyone else accountable to raise the child. To makes sure the child
has everything they need. It cost money to make sure the child has everything they need.

You forget, I'm a non-custodial parent myself and I do pay child support. I pay through DSS, 
The checks are mail to my ex since she doesn't get a welfare check. But of course, she works for a living.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I am for marriage, and for both parents working out their child rearing by their own efforts


I could call that a lie, but I suppose it's more of a half-truth.

You support marriage as long as it's between the parents.  If they get divorced then remarried you call that "adultery".  And you consider the step-parent an "impostor" regardless how well they treat their step-children or how poorly the biological parent treats the kids.

If you were truly thinking in the childrens' best interest, you would stand up for all good parents, be they the biological or those of a second marriage; likewise, you would denounce those who do their children wrong.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> You say your for marriages and parents working it out among themselves. How you purpose they do that?



I honestly do not see how a rational person can ask a question like that.

Do you see the only way for two parents to raise their own child is through the Courts? and through Court orders? well I do not.

The 2 parents do not need rules or procedures in working out their own parenting, and the law needs to get out of their way.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I do appreciate your confidence that I will breeze through the September primary into the November General election.


Don't delude yourself any further than you already are 

You simply hang around until after the election either way.





> And your time certainly is not my time so lets not get the two confused.


I wasn't confused, but I noted that you did not answer my question - *why is my time limited?  To what is it limited?*


----------



## Geruch

Geruch said:


> You say your for marriages and parents working it out among themselves. How you purpose they do that?





VoteJP said:


> I honestly do not see how a rational person can ask a question like that.



Your the one that keeps saying Parents should work it out among themselves and the courts shouldn't get involved. So I thought you might have some suggestions of ways two Adults with a child/ren could work it out. Without using the court system to have court orders put in place.



VoteJP said:


> Do you see the only way for two parents to raise their own child is through the Courts? and through Court orders? well I do not. The 2 parents do not need rules or procedures in working out their own parenting, and the law needs to get out of their way.



As far as I'm concern, It's not for me or *YOU* to decide how someone works it out or what method's they choose to use. If both fine they can't work it out on their own. They feel the only way to do things peacefully is by going to court. When all else has failed, then so be it. That's their constitutional right as citizen of the United States.

Raising a child cost money. Why should one parent provide *ALL* and the other parent provides *NOTHING*?

Just because the Custodial Parent gives the child everything they need and overflowing. 
It's not justification for the other parent not pay child support. 

Your using that to justifiy why non-custodial parent shouldn't have to pay child support.

As I said before 


Geruch said:


> You can't stand it because the laws are holding non-custodial parents financially accountable.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> Your the one that keeps saying Parents should work it out among themselves and the courts shouldn't get involved. So I thought you might have some suggestions of ways two Adults with a child/ren could work it out. Without using the court system to have court orders put in place.



The 2 parents can decide where and when the child(ren) will live, and with whom, and what school to go to, and what foods to eat, and etc.

It truly is absurd for a Court and a Judge to order a child where to live and when they get visited and to order other aspects of parenting.



Geruch said:


> As far as I'm concern, It's not for me or *YOU* to decide how someone works it out or what method's they choose to use. If both fine they can't work it out on their own. They feel the only way to do things peacefully is by going to court. When all else has failed, then so be it. That's their constitutional right as citizen of the United States.



The Courts and the laws are already there long before the child is conceived or the parents are born, and there is no way of parents working out anything with the big giant threat of physical forced posed by the law and the Courts in their background.

It is like trying to ignore the infamous "Elephant" in the room, as it can not be done. 

The only way for parents to work out their own disputes is to remove the law and the Courts from the parents' business. 



Geruch said:


> Raising a child cost money. Why should one parent provide *ALL* and the other parent provides *NOTHING*?
> 
> Just because the Custodial Parent gives the child everything they need and overflowing.
> It's not justification for the other parent not pay child support.
> 
> Your using that to justifiy why non-custodial parent shouldn't have to pay child support.
> 
> As I said before



It is because the so called "custodial" has in effect stolen (or kidnapped) the child from the other parent.

It would be like stealing a car from a person, and then come back demanding cash to pay for the gasoline and insurance, or else they will never see their car again - thus an utterly absurd equation.

The parent that has lost their child is the one that has been damaged. The parent with "custody" is not harmed or damaged at all.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> My plan is working out just fine - in fact it is working out great.
> 
> And *your time is running out.*


Why is my time limited?  What is running out about my time?


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The 2 parents can decide where and when the child(ren) will live, and with whom, and what school to go to, and what foods to eat, and etc.
> 
> It truly is absurd for a Court and a Judge to order a child where to live and when they get visited and to order other aspects of parenting.



Yea in a perfect world and if both parents act like they had some common sense.
When both can't work it out that's when the laws are used. So What



VoteJP said:


> The Courts and the laws are already there long before the child is conceived or the parents are born, and there is no way of parents working out anything with the big giant threat of physical forced posed by the law and the Courts in their background.
> 
> It is like trying to ignore the infamous "Elephant" in the room, as it can not be done.
> 
> *The only way for parents to work out their own disputes is to remove the law and the Courts from the parents' business. *


You know that will never happen. The laws are always going to be there.

Ever wonder why the laws was put in place? I think it's a combination of things. First to many parents couldn't work it out. To many parents were relying on the Government, family, churches to provide for their children. That put a burden on other people. When both parents should of been providing for their own children. Providing for your children doesn't stop once you get divorce or when a couple splits up.

Knowing the laws are in place. One would think that both parents would want to work it out among themselves. 
If both parents worked it out among themselves in the first place. Then there be no need to go to court. 

Now would there, Of course not.   



VoteJP said:


> It is because the so called "custodial" has in effect stolen (or kidnapped) the child from the other parent.
> 
> It would be like stealing a car from a person, and then come back demanding cash to pay for the gasoline and insurance, or else they will never see their car again - thus an utterly absurd equation.
> 
> The parent that has lost their child is the one that has been damaged. The parent with "custody" is not harmed or damaged at all.



What's absurd is, You compairing a CAR and a CHILD. 

Ohhhh, Quit thinking about yourself. It's the divorce that causes damage to the child/ren. The children are the one's that suffer the most. The only way to really lose your child/ren is if a Judge declared you a unfit parents. 
The non-custodial parents do have visitation rights.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> What's absurd is, You comparing a CAR and a CHILD.



That equation is not absurd at all because it drives home a very important point.

The new car is viewed as a valuable asset as in bettering the owner, while the children are being presented as if a child is a burden and liability that harms the person with custody which is not true.

The only time children are indeed seen as a detriment is when the custodial wants to employ a new mate and new lover and the children are seen as an interference to their adultery.

That is what the Child Support and the laws subsidize - family break-up and licentiousness.

And the effects of the system is detrimental to the separated parents as well as to the custodial, since it gives the separated parents a sense of their duty and their honor is filled when they pay the Child Support when it is not. 



Geruch said:


> Ohhhh, Quit thinking about yourself. It's the divorce that causes damage to the child/ren. The children are the one's that suffer the most.



I agree with that, and so making divorce and separation as easier and more comfortable does more damage and not less.

The ignorant Child Support and Custody laws turn the children into a cheap commodity and a product liability instead of blessings from God.

We need to start encouraging and promoting marriage, and start helping to make marriage as the more easy and more comfortable choice.



Geruch said:


> The only way to really lose your child/ren is if a Judge declared you a unfit parents.
> The non-custodial parents do have visitation rights.



Visitation is not parenting.

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That equation is not absurd at all because it drives home a very important point.


That you're a complete wackjob?  We don't need you to "drive home" that point; you make it evident every time you post.



> We need to start encouraging and promoting marriage, and start helping to make marriage as the more easy and more comfortable choice.


Making marriage easier will cause more damage because people who shouldn't be married will be, only to realize their incompatibility later.  You should learn that the mere addition of a child can not make a bad relationship better, and you can not force people to remain together... but I know the whole wackjob thing gets in your way.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> Making marriage easier will cause more damage because people who shouldn't be married will be, only to realize their incompatibility later.  You should learn that the mere addition of a child can not make a bad relationship better, and you can not force people to remain together...



You preach the defeatist perception, as you have already given up, defeated, just like the Child Support and Custody laws which are based in the failure and destruction of families.

I am simply telling that we can have far better than that.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> My plan is working out just fine - in fact it is working out great.
> 
> And *your time is running out.*


Why is my time limited?  What is running out about my time?


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> ... the Child Support and Custody laws which are based in the failure and destruction of families.


Could you show me the committee discussions and or debates which demonstrate your point of view?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> defeated


Nah, couldn't be.  No one is more of a master at being defeated than you, Jimmy.   

I am sorry reality keeps getting in the way of your success, just as it will again this November.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That equation is not absurd at all because it drives home a very important point.



Hey You, Wake Up !

Your the one that view's a child as a burden and a liability.  
Most people in their right mines don't view children in that way.

A child is priceless. A child's love can't be brought.
Being their for your child in good times and bad. Priceless
I say it again, What's absurd is, You compairing a CAR and a CHILD. 



VoteJP said:


> I agree with that, and so making divorce and separation as easier and more comfortable does more damage and not less.



You think that divorce and separation is easy. ok
Let me be clear, You don't speak for all divorce parents.
Or for couples with children that split up for whatever reason.

Say, Mary and Joe decide to get married. They have a child. A few years down the road things aren't working out for whatever reason. Their not willing to do anything to repair the damage. So one or the other decides to get a divorce. Both parents or one parent is hurting deeply. Which leads to the parents hurting their own child. Because the child see mommy and daddy spliting up. And sometimes the children blame themselves for their parents getting a divorce. 

I would blame the parents for their actions. Because they have a mind and they are able think for themselves.
But of course, You would blame the laws. What you think your going to do? Put a law in place to force people to stay married?


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The ignorant Child Support and Custody laws turn the children into a cheap commodity and a product liability instead of blessings from God.



That's your view on Child Support and Custody laws. It's not mine.

Children are a blessings from God and that blessing isn't given lightly. God gives us the responsibility to provide for our children. To cloth them, to feed them, to shelter them, keep them from harm, to teach them right from wrong, to teach them to respect others, to teach them to do what moraly right. Yes all this and more falls on the PARENTS and not others.

But of course in your sick mine. You would love it, If the custodial parent that got divorce.
Would depend and look upon others to support their children. Other then the non-custodial parent.
Shame on them for expecting the non-custodial parent to give some financial support. What were they thinking. 

Lord knows we don't want to have to say, The Devil made me do it.



VoteJP said:


> We need to start encouraging and promoting marriage, and start helping to make marriage as the more easy and more comfortable choice.


HOW???? Love to hear it. Not really but give it your best shot.

Getting married is EASY and COMFORTABLE choice for people that are truly in love.

Is working out the problems that couple's are face with. That's  what they need help with. If they chose to get that kind of help.

All I'm reading is cop-outs and excuses and excuses. One excuse after another. 
You talk all this BS about Stealing, Theivery, Ramson, Kidnapping.
You are taking the definitions of those words way out of context.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> Your the one that view's a child as a burden and a liability.
> Most people in their right mines don't view children in that way.



It is the Child Support and Custody laws and the Courts that treat the children that way, and my objection has always been directed at the law and in reforming the law.

I agree that parents view it differently and therefore the law and Courts violate the family and undermines the parenting.



Geruch said:


> I say it again, What's absurd is, You comparing a CAR and a CHILD.



It is just you (or your kind) that can not face the equation.



Geruch said:


> You think that divorce and separation is easy. ok



I do not say that - I said the law and the Courts try to make divorce and separation as easy and comfortable and that ignorance needs to be stopped.



Geruch said:


> That's your view on Child Support and Custody laws. It's not mine.



Yes, and I am the one to be Governor.

.


----------



## Geruch

I'm back, Had to get my boots. Bullsh*t getting deep. 

You have no meat & potatoe solutions.  

You solutions remind me of swiss cheese. Nothing but holes in it.

In the real world. People are held accountable for their own actions.
In the real world. People are held accountable for their own choices they make.

In your warp world. You want to put all the blames on the laws. 
Or  should I say, You want to blame it all on the Government. 
After all they are the one's that make up the laws.

I didn't know we had so many people in the world that couldn't think for themselves.

Your getting to be a bore


----------



## Geruch

Found this on this other forum. The Frederick News-Post Forum


> Written by other forum member - I can't hold this back any longer. I am sure every voter would like to know as much as possible about the candidates they are thinking about voting for. I don't remember if I said it here before, but somewhere between JPC Sr and VoteJP, there was Booky who was pushing his new book on "Codependency" and "A Guide to Codependency". Just in case any of you are cat lovers, here's what Booky/JP had to say about cats. Or was it about women? You decide... This quote is from a couple of different messages. He says that he means what he writes and he writes what he means. He says everything he has written on these forums will benefit him in the long run. He says he is following a well calculated plan, so I take it he means that it is all fair game. I think if you care to take the time and read more of this stuff on that forum, you will see more than you might have imagined you will see.


Codependency

A Guide To Codependency



> By Booky/JP - I am not certain possitive, but I do believe it is very true; that any woman that has a cat for a pet is off limits, there is no use for any man to seek them, no reason to flirt with them, and do not try to date one, because the woman having a pet cat is a sure sign that her heart is closed and she has completely given up on men. The woman might say otherwise, and they might even go to single groups, and they post online dating sites seeking her "Prince Charming", but men do not be fooled. The pet cat is the sure sign of winter's cold. I get this opinion from experience and looking around. And the women talk to each other so a new woman comes around and another woman will whisper to them to go get a cat. And I do not say owning the cats make the women cold, the cat is just a sign. An I do admit that surely there might be some single women with a cat and not be rigid, just as surely there are some single men that might have a cat, but my point remains true for the vast majority. A single woman over 40 and having a pet cat is not going to be open to any romantic relationship, and it is a sign for men to stay away and do not even try.



Senior Dating & Sexuality Discussions at DailyStrength: Beware of cats.

I'm not sure what to make of it. Seem a bit weird to me.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> In the real world. People are held accountable for their own actions.
> In the real world. People are held accountable for their own choices they make.



I see that as making my point that this world is dysfunctional.

Parenting does not need Govt intervention, and it was wrong to put the laws into parenting, and it needs to be stopped.

Having a big-daddy govt is not a healthy thing for any society.



Geruch said:


> In your warp world. You want to put all the blames on the laws.
> Or  should I say, You want to blame it all on the Government.
> After all they are the one's that make up the laws.
> 
> I didn't know we had so many people in the world that couldn't think for themselves.



It is true that I blame the govt and the laws, but I see the bigger issue is that many if not most other people put the responsibility onto the govt and its laws as if it is the big-daddy to save the people from their own problems.

Having parenting-laws and parenting-police is not the role of proper govt, and it is up to parents to work out their own parenting problems.

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Having a big-daddy govt is not a healthy thing for any society.


Psst... you're supposed to be acting like a *Democrat*.

If the other Dems see you posting stuff like that they will not give you the new password to the secret meeting chamber.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I see that as making my point that this world is dysfunctional. Parenting does not need Govt intervention, and it was wrong to put the laws into parenting, and it needs to be stopped. Having a big-daddy govt is not a healthy thing for any society.
> 
> It is true that I blame the govt and the laws, but I see the bigger issue is that many if not most other people put the responsibility onto the govt and its laws as if it is the big-daddy to save the people from their own problems. Having parenting-laws and parenting-police is not the role of proper govt, and it is up to parents to work out their own parenting problems.


James P Cusick Sr. I don't want non-custodial or separate parents paying child support. That's what your saying. If the non-custodial or separate parents doesn't help finanically support their own children. Who do you expect to financially support the children? The Government? Churches? Family? The Custodial Parent? Is it all of the above, Expect for YOU right 

You expect the Big-Daddy Government to support the poor or anyone else in need. 
You do believe welfare is a good thing. It's not to be use as a excuse not for not paying child support.

Isn't it a good thing when non-custodial or separate parent help financially support their own children?

I truly believe that, Financially supporting a child should fall on both parents and not the Government or others. IMO


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> James P Cusick Sr. I don't want non-custodial or separate parents paying child support. That's what your saying. If the non-custodial or separate parents doesn't help financially support their own children.



My point is said more correctly that I am only against the govt laws that are incorrectly called as "Child Support" and that has nothing to do with actually supporting one's own children.

I am all for both parents helping to provide for and to raise their own children, but NOT for complying to the inhuman Child Support laws.

And I also object to the Custody laws were one parent is legally excluded from their role as the parent when declared as "non custodial" as that is effectively stealing the child from their other parent.

When their children are stolen away from the parents as in "custody" then it becomes like paying a ransom to the kidnappers.



Geruch said:


> Who do you expect to financially support the children? The Government? Churches? Family? The Custodial Parent? Is it all of the above, Expect for YOU right



Sure, any of those are fine and healthy ways.

And when one takes "custody" then surely that means they are to provide all of the "custody" the child needs.



Geruch said:


> You expect the Big-Daddy Government to support the poor or anyone else in need.
> You do believe welfare is a good thing. It's not to be use as a excuse not for not paying child support.



I do indeed believe in giving welfare assistance to anyone in need, but the Child Support is required where there is no "need" at all to justify it.

We turn parents into criminals when they have done absolutely nothing wrong, and no one is harmed and there is no victim and no real crime.



Geruch said:


> Isn't it a good thing when non-custodial or separate parent help financially support their own children?



The law declaring parents as "non custodial" means the law is legally removing the parental rights and it is not theirs to provide the custody.

As I have said before - it is like stealing a car and then demanding cash payments from the victim to pay the thief for their gasoline expenses. 

When people steal a parent's child then demanding cash payments in Child Support is equivalent to kidnapping and demanding ransom. 



Geruch said:


> I truly believe that, Financially supporting a child should fall on both parents and not the Government or others. IMO



Yes, but then you take it to the Govt in the Courts and laws and your words do not match.

You do not want the Govt to do the support but then you run to the Govt to demand Child Support and that is doing the same thing under different terminology.

.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Sure, any of those are fine and healthy ways. And when one takes
> "custody" then surely that means they are to *provide all* of the "custody" the child needs.


Your definition of "Custody" is wrong. It doesn't mean, "Provide All" the child needs.
It means, Where the child is going to physical live at. But of course you like to put new meanings to words.

When you say, "Provide All" - You mean the custodial parent should "Pay for everything the child needs".
When the parent can't "Provide All" for whatever reason. They should go to Welfare, Churches and Family. 
The other parents should 'Provide Nothing" or financial support for their child should be given voluntarily. Maybe



VoteJP said:


> We turn parents into criminals when they have done absolutely nothing wrong, and no one is harmed and there is no victim and no real crime.



I myself don't consider a person that disobey a court order a "Criminal"

When a person disobey a court order. What do you expect the judge to do. Look the other way?
No matter what you might think. There is a victim and that's the child. That's all the judge care's about. 



VoteJP said:


> Yes, but then you take it to the Govt in the Courts and laws and your words do not match. You do not want the Govt to do the support but then you run to the Govt to demand Child Support and that is doing the same thing under different terminology.



I could say the same about you. You don't want the Government to be involved in marriages, child support or custody. You want them to make laws that promote marriages. You want to give incentives for people that do get married. But there's still one problem. What happen when the marriage don't work out and they want a divorce? What happens then?

Child support is just and is needed. It should be a joint effort to provide. No one parent should have to "Provide All".

Let me make myself very clear. BOTH PARENTS are suppose to financially support their children. When a married couple or non married couple splits up. No one parent should have to rely solely on their own income, the welfare programs or others to support their children. 

The welfare system is not there soley so the other parent can say, 
I DON'T WANT TOO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT MY CHILD, You do it.

How would it all work if there was No such thing as Child Support laws or Custody laws?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> Psst... you're supposed to be acting like a *Democrat*.
> 
> If the other Dems see you posting stuff like that they will not give you the new password to the secret meeting chamber.



We need to be aware of the vast difference between following the Party line, or directing the Party line.

My campaign is seeking the Party's leadership role where I call the shots, and others step in line.

This is a truly important point in that years ago when I first went to the Court for the Child Support then I went there with the intention of walking the line and instead the law put me into jail, and so then the line was broken, and later I returned to that same Court and spray painted my famous words there-on, so now it is myself that draws the line.  

.


----------



## Geruch

I asked a direct question. Maybe you didn't see it.

How would it all work if there was No such thing as Child Support laws or Custody laws?

You said, You want them to make laws that promote marriages. 
You said, You want to give incentives for people that do get married. 

Have any ideal how to do that?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> I asked a direct question. Maybe you didn't see it.



I really just did not get around to replying to your last previous posting, and even though I might seem to be online all of the time, I really am not, and I can not type very well and I am slow at posting and I just can not reply to some posting that are way out of line.

I really do like and welcome questions, but that does not always help much in giving an answer.



Geruch said:


> How would it all work if there was No such thing as Child Support laws or Custody laws?



I honestly see that as asking for too much as we simply must let nature and people to take their own course and then wait to see what happens.

The thing is that I have full confidence in all the Moms and all the Dads that they will find ways that work for their own children and it does not need to be orchestrated or controlled or anything as we just let them be.

No parent needs other people looking over their family or their relationship telling them how to do this, that or anything else. 



Geruch said:


> You said, You want them to make laws that promote marriages.
> You said, You want to give incentives for people that do get married.
> 
> Have any ideal how to do that?



I am happy to give "ideas" and I have given some before in old postings, but my disclaimer is that my "ideas" do not mean it is my new political intention or new campaign platform because such are just "ideas" to discuss.

One idea to protect marriage would be to make it illegal to commit adultery with a married person, and make so damages could be seized and possible imprisonment for repeat offenders.

As it is now Jerry Seinfeld told of how he liked another Man's wife and then broke up their marriage and now married to the woman and I say Seinfeld needs to be treated as a criminal of society, link HERE.  

Another example is Monica Lewinsky that cheated with President Clinton and then the witch walked away to profit from her dirty deeds. She was the one that adulterated the family unit and we need laws that protect the family unit from outside predators.

I would also like the idea of creating a "common-law" marriage as soon as any couple have a baby then they need to be deemed as legally married because a baby makes marriage. And then grant no divorce and no remarriage until all their child reach the mature age of 22. If they have children by 2 or more mates then they would be married to each and all until the child of each matures. 

Ideas.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> When a person disobey a court order. What do you expect the judge to do. Look the other way?



If we change the law then there would not be any Court involvement and no Court order and the Judge could go work on real criminal cases.

The law has no business ordering parents in their parenting. 



Geruch said:


> What happen when the marriage don't work out and they want a divorce? What happens then?



If they have minor children then they must not be given a divorce.

They could still separate and maybe even live in adultery, but no divorce until the child reaches maturity.

.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> I would also like the idea of creating a "common-law" marriage as soon as any couple have a baby then they need to be deemed as legally married because a baby makes marriage. And then grant no divorce and no remarriage until all their child reach the mature age of 22. If they have children by 2 or more mates then they would be married to each and all until the child of each matures.
> .



Well that certainly is quotable copy.


----------



## thunderclapp

*The fruit will get you bees*



Geruch said:


> What happen when the marriage don't work out and they want a divorce? What happens then?





VoteJP said:


> If they have minor children then they must not be given a divorce.
> 
> They could still separate and maybe even live in adultery, but no divorce until the child reaches maturity.





			
				Thunderclapp said:
			
		

> What happens if a woman marries YOU? What happens then?





VoteJP said:


> If they have minor children then they must just let me run away and then they get to raise the child and the child will have everything he needs to overflowing.
> 
> They could still separate and maybe even live in adultery, but no divorce until I disappear long enough for my wife to be able to have me thrown in jail.  Then after she dies and my mother asks her second husband to forgive my c/s debt, I'll have to do other things to get noticed, like spray some words about the thieving child support on government buildings.  And after that, when I am 3 years in the "tomb" of prison, I will roll away the stone and rise above everyone in the state as Governor of Maryland.  But I come to do away with the old law as my kingdom will have no laws and the fruit will get us bees.



I'm Thunderclapp and I approved this message.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> I have sat in court on a child support day and watched the deadbeats walk in with their nice brand new clothes and gold hanging off their necks crying the blues they can't support their kid. Or how they say they have been looking for a job for 2 years and can't find one.. sorry McDonalds is always hiring. It's even better when their pregnant wife/gf is there with them to offer moral support. Seriously? He's a deadbeat and when he dumps your ass he won't support your kid either.







VoteJP said:


> I have been to many of those Court hearing too, except I believe what those parents say to the Courts.
> 
> Your perception is simply cold-hearted and cruel.
> 
> Those parents are the honest and trusting parents that actually go to the unjust Courts, and if they listened to my suggestions then they would stop pleading to the thieves.



I see the two postings above as being the most significant info given on this thread.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I see the two postings above as being the most significant info given on this thread.
> 
> .



Wanna come sit with me at the next court hearing?


----------



## smdavis65

LusbyMom said:


> Wanna come sit with me at the next court hearing?



I will! 
I'd love to learn how to not pay child support so my ex can't buy a whole new wardrobe every 3 months!
That way I don't have to listen to the kids complain about having no food in their house!


----------



## LusbyMom

smdavis65 said:


> I will!
> I'd love to learn how to not pay child support so my ex can't buy a whole new wardrobe every 3 months!
> That way I don't have to listen to the kids complain about having no food in their house!



Cool! I will let you know when it is... and we can sit together   Only problem is... you have a real job... so you can't really get away from it. You could quit and I hide from them


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> Wanna come sit with me at the next court hearing?



I really would do that but I see no sense in it because you declare that you do not believe what is seen or heard.

Those are the honest parents that actually show up to the thief Court and say they do not have the money, or do not have jobs, they are trying to cooperate and yet the Court and yourself rejects their efforts and denounce the parents as liars and deadbeats as they try to cooperate.

THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT, and there is nothing else to see or to hear.

They are treated as criminals instead of as parents.

.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I really would do that but I see no sense in it because you declare that you do not believe what is seen or heard.
> 
> Those are the honest parents that actually show up to the thief Court and say they do not have the money, or do not have jobs, they are trying to cooperate and yet the Court and yourself rejects their efforts and denounce the parents as liars and deadbeats as they try to cooperate.
> 
> THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT, and there is nothing else to see or to hear.
> 
> They are treated as criminals instead of as parents.
> 
> .



You could explain it to me while it's going on


----------



## maxima87

The system that has been established to assist custodial parents in seeking support from the non-custodial parent has too many flaws and is in favor of the deadbeats.  

Below, I will outline my justification for that statement.

April 2009:  Filed back into court after receiving no payments for 6 months.
June 2009:  Preliminary Inquiry
July 2009:  Contempt hearing (Was closed since the non-custodial was incarcerated.  He was released within a few weeks)
October 2009:  It’s taken three (3) months to get back into court for enforcement (preliminary)
November 2009: Purge was set for $200 and was given 3 months to pay.  To my understanding this is over and above the monthly amount (which for the record has never been received).
February 2010:  Non-custodial was unable to pay full amount, was given a TWO month extension for $100.
April 2010:  The balance of the purge was rescinded and the non-custodial is ordered to reappear when a dr. releases him from care.

In the period of 12 months, $286.99 has been paid on a monthly obligation of $256.25.

In the period of 12 months, the custodial has paid $5760 on daycare expenses alone.  In the period of 12 months, the custodial has paid $480 on a health insurance premium, not including co-pays and medication.  

It appears that the Circuit Court of St. Mary’s County does not have the best interest of the child in mind when it comes to sentencing the non-custodial parent.

Luckily I am fortunate enough to provide for my child and not have to depend upon child support to make ends meet.  

Five months to pay $100 purge...and hasn't paid the monthly obligation...unless you count a $9.16 check.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> You could explain it to me while it's going on



Okay, I will go to the c/s Court hearings as I have not been there for a long while now.

Just name the date and time and I will confirm to you if I can make it or not.

I am free to go on most days but I do get Doctor's appointments or other strict times where I have to be elsewhere but I will sincerely try to be there at whatever time is convenient for you since I have a lot of free time on my disability, and I say it would be fun to do.

JP.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



maxima87 said:


> The system that has been established to assist custodial parents in seeking support from the non-custodial parent has too many flaws and is in favor of the deadbeats.
> 
> Below, I will outline my justification for that statement.
> 
> April 2009:  Filed back into court after receiving no payments for 6 months.
> June 2009:  Preliminary Inquiry
> July 2009:  Contempt hearing (Was closed since the non-custodial was incarcerated.  He was released within a few weeks)
> October 2009:  It’s taken three (3) months to get back into court for enforcement (preliminary)
> November 2009: Purge was set for $200 and was given 3 months to pay.  To my understanding this is over and above the monthly amount (which for the record has never been received).
> February 2010:  Non-custodial was unable to pay full amount, was given a TWO month extension for $100.
> April 2010:  The balance of the purge was rescinded and the non-custodial is ordered to reappear when a dr. releases him from care.
> 
> In the period of 12 months, $286.99 has been paid on a monthly obligation of $256.25.
> 
> In the period of 12 months, the custodial has paid $5760 on daycare expenses alone.  In the period of 12 months, the custodial has paid $480 on a health insurance premium, not including co-pays and medication.
> 
> It appears that the Circuit Court of St. Mary’s County does not have the best interest of the child in mind when it comes to sentencing the non-custodial parent.
> 
> Luckily I am fortunate enough to provide for my child and not have to depend upon child support to make ends meet.
> 
> Five months to pay $100 purge...and hasn't paid the monthly obligation...unless you count a $9.16 check.



What you are describing is that you and the law are so greedy and selfish that you are attacking the dead-broke father of your children.

He is not a deadbeat as he is obviously dead-broke and you with the law are unjust and cruel.

And you do not even need the money that you so greedily demand.

You and the law are hurting the children by hurting their Dad.

.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> What you are describing is that you and the law are so greedy and selfish that you are attacking the dead-broke father of your children. He is not a deadbeat as he is obviously dead-broke and you with the law are unjust and cruel. And you do not even need the money that you so greedily demand. You and the law are hurting the children by hurting their Dad.



James you're so full of crock. 

This person isn't selfish nor greedy. She's doing everything she can to provide for their child/ren. 
It's  about how the law works. A non-custodial or separate parent can go for months without paying. 
And little to nothing is done about it.

The non-custodial or separate parent is suppose to pay part of the cost in raising their child.
You rather have every non- custodial or separate parent just walk away as if they never had a child.

This should be a win win for you JP. The law is working the way you think it should. 
The non-custodial parent isn't paying. You should be so proud. POS

In your sick mine. How in the H*LL is it hurting the child?  

Your one COLD HEARTED person.
Now I totally get why your son moved out of state and way down south. 
So he can get far away from you. He knows the truth for what it really is.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> What you are describing is that you and the law are so greedy and selfish that you are attacking the dead-broke father of your children.
> 
> He is not a deadbeat as he is obviously dead-broke and you with the law are unjust and cruel.
> 
> And you do not even need the money that you so greedily demand.
> 
> You and the law are hurting the children by hurting their Dad.
> 
> .



We will have to do it on a day when it's not my court date... I wouldn't want you to call in a bomb threat... I have been waiting for a year for a date.. I wouldn't want you to screw it up


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> We will have to do it on a day when it's not my court date... I wouldn't want you to call in a bomb threat... I have been waiting for a year for a date.. I wouldn't want you to screw it up



Thank you for that, as yes I would not want to attend with you on your Court date in abusing the father of your child.

Some other day would be better.

.


----------



## maxima87

VoteJP said:


> What you are describing is that you and the law are so greedy and selfish that you are attacking the dead-broke father of your children.
> 
> He is not a deadbeat as he is obviously dead-broke and you with the law are unjust and cruel.
> 
> And you do not even need the money that you so greedily demand.
> 
> You and the law are hurting the children by hurting their Dad.
> 
> .



I'm greedy????  I am not waking around in $150 basketball shoes in court crying broke...that isn't me there buddy.  I'm not the one telling lies to the judge about why I don't have any $$.  He is *not* deadbroke...he is a dead*beat*...

And for the record, I don't rely on child support to get by...if I did, we wouldn't make it.  However, that doesn't excuse his obligation.  If we were together (under your scenario), I guess I would have to support him also.  That's a joke...much like you  G'day  mate!


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



maxima87 said:


> I'm greedy????



That is greedy "and selfish" as the two are different.

And doing that wrong to the child's Dad makes you a child abuser too.



maxima87 said:


> I am not waking around in $150 basketball shoes in court crying broke...that isn't me there buddy.  I'm not the one telling lies to the judge about why I don't have any $$.  He is *not* deadbroke...he is a dead*beat*...



You and the law have a duty to believe the father of the child and both you and the law are immoral tyrants that steal and abuse.



maxima87 said:


> And for the record, I don't rely on child support to get by...if I did, we wouldn't make it.  However, that doesn't excuse his obligation.



It means you are demanding money which you do not need, from your child's Dad whom owes you nothing.

You are the one that stole his child and now demanding cash payments for your own wrong doing.



maxima87 said:


> If we were together (under your scenario), I guess I would have to support him also.  That's a joke...much like you  G'day  mate!



You are just pretending to be separate from the Dad but you 2 are morally married with a child as the proof, and the Child Support demands are just to pay for immoral adulteries.

The law has lied to you, and your child needs their Dad and not the stolen loot.

.


----------



## MMDad

*James*

You claim to believe in God, so I have to ask you:

Who is more powerful? God or the government?

Most people make a promise before God "til death do us part" or "for time and all eternity." Yet many still leave.

The state had no hand in marriage for a very long time. Then they made it so you can't just up and leave, you have to settle all open questions in court. They made it harder to leave, not easier.

If it is already against a person's vow to God to leave, yet they still do, what makes you think that any of man's laws would change that?

Did the state make you break your promise to God?


----------



## maxima87

VoteJP said:


> That is greedy "and selfish" as the two are different.
> 
> And doing that wrong to the child's Dad makes you a child abuser too.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the law have a duty to believe the father of the child and both you and the law are immoral tyrants that steal and abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> It means you are demanding money which you do not need, from your child's Dad whom owes you nothing.
> 
> You are the one that stole his child and now demanding cash payments for your own wrong doing.
> 
> 
> 
> You are just pretending to be separate from the Dad but you 2 are morally married with a child as the proof, and the Child Support demands are just to pay for immoral adulteries.
> 
> The law has lied to you, and your child needs their Dad and not the stolen loot.
> 
> .


You must be smoking crack in your spare time???  That would be the only way that you would believe that crap you spew.  

What is your justification for a man that just up and leaves?  What is your justification who chooses not to see his child?  You did that, didn't you?  I guess that makes it okay?  

You are a rather interesting creature with sick and twisted morals...

What would be the scenario if I couldn't provide like I do...go on welfare instead of the father assisting?  The last time I checked all the fast food places were hiring...no excuse for not working.  

What's funny is that I spoke with a few people that don't do as much for their children as they would like, and even they think you are full of it!!!!


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



MMDad said:


> Who is more powerful? God or the government?


I say people are testing that now, testing to see if God will strike them or not.

The law has already been made as superior to God and the govt is indeed acting as if it were the God.

I believe we all will see which is more powerful in due time, and I believe it will be in soon time.

Plus the dysfunctional and abusive Child Support and Custody laws have already shown to me that God is the power and our Govt is now already in big trouble. 

.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> I say people are testing that now, testing to see if God will strike them or not.
> 
> The law has already been made as superior to God and the govt is indeed acting as if it were the God.
> 
> I believe we all will see which is more powerful in due time, and I believe it will be in soon time.
> 
> Plus the dysfunctional and abusive Child Support and Custody laws have already shown to me that God is the power and our Govt is now already in big trouble.
> 
> .


 Did the law make you break your promise to God?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



MMDad said:


> Did the law make you break your promise to God?



My religion has greatly changed and far improved from that time in my younger years when I had a very superficial form of religion.

So now I can not say if I did break any promise to God while I can declare that I failed in my marriage to my wife.

Most importantly though is that my divorce was legal and it was the law and the govt that legally broke or dissolved my marriage.

Now in my later years and in my improved religious knowledge then I say I remained married to my wife till death did we part, and the govt writ-of-divorce was an immoral abomination that violates marriages and that "legal" divorce meant nothing but a lie.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



maxima87 said:


> You must be smoking crack in your spare time???  That would be the only way that you would believe that crap you spew.



I do not use any form of narcotic, and it is even very seldom that I might drink some alcohol, so whether fortunate or not - I am quite sober indeed.

I do very sincerely believe everything that I posted as being true and correct based on my researched and sober reasoning.



maxima87 said:


> What is your justification for a man that just up and leaves?  What is your justification who chooses not to see his child?  You did that, didn't you?  I guess that makes it okay?



It is not a matter for justification but there are always sound reasonings for such occurrences.

No person (Man or Woman) just up and leaves or fails to be with their own child except by compulsion, as in some force pushed the parent away.

Some times it is the money, but most times it is the custodial parent which causes the separated parent to leave, and usually it is the Mom that pushes the father away.  

It is not a matter of justification as it is a defect in human relationships, and it is fueled to extremes by the intrusive violating laws including particularly the Child Support and Custody laws which alienate parents from their spouse and from their children. 



maxima87 said:


> You are a rather interesting creature with sick and twisted morals...



There is nothing sick or twisted about "Thou shalt not steal" meaning not to *steal the children* and not to *steal the money* from the child's separated parent.



maxima87 said:


> What would be the scenario if I couldn't provide like I do...go on welfare instead of the father assisting?  The last time I checked all the fast food places were hiring...no excuse for not working.



Welfare is meant and designed for citizens in need that do qualify and I surely do agree with welfare programs and I would like to see them expanded.

I certainly do not want you or any single Mom or any separated parent (Mom or Dad) to resist welfare and take one of those "fast food" jobs - and not wanting is not an excuse.



maxima87 said:


> What's funny is that I spoke with a few people that don't do as much for their children as they would like, and even they think you are full of it!!!!



They say that to persons like yourself because you are belligerent and cruel, but in secret ballot they will vote for me.

If you ever want to start living in a respectful truth then you will have to step down from that hateful platform.

.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I say I remained married to my wife till death did we part, and the govt writ-of-divorce was an immoral abomination that violates marriages and that "legal" divorce meant nothing but a lie.


How do you think she would respond hearing that you "remained married" to her?  After all, she initiated the divorce; she went to the state and asked for the dissolution, not the other way around.  As happens in all such cases, the state never barges in on a relationship on a whim.  By all appearances, you were more than accepting of that as you willingly left the area to enjoy a lifestyle free from the encumberences of a family and responsibilities.





VoteJP said:


> I am quite sober indeed.


   Not intoxicated, just a nutcase.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> Most importantly though is that my divorce was legal and it was the law and the govt that legally broke or dissolved my marriage.
> 
> .



The state made you break your promise to God? Really? Are you that weak?

Tell the truth - you deserted your wife long before the state dissolved your marriage, didn't you?

And you were off running around the country, drinking, drugging, screwing, and raping before you were divorced, weren't you?

You broke your promise to God - there isn't one vow you made that you kept, was there?

Why should a voter believe anything you say if a solemn promise to God means nothing to you? Why, if you aren't even willing to admit it?

There is no forgiveness without repentance. You still blame the state for the marriage that you ruined.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



MMDad said:


> The state made you break your promise to God? Really? Are you that weak?



The State broke the marriage by legal process or else I would have remained legally married.

As to any "promise to God" then I figure God understands everything.

And sad yet true is that I was not strong in character at that time, so I was very weak indeed. 



MMDad said:


> Tell the truth - you deserted your wife long before the state dissolved your marriage, didn't you?
> 
> And you were off running around the country, drinking, drugging, screwing, and raping before you were divorced, weren't you?



Yes, I separated from the wife first.

And if I (or any spouse) dissolves the marriage then that is not the same as the State interfering and making a legal distinction in such relationships. Except that the State is playing God and violating the Institution of Church. 



MMDad said:


> You broke your promise to God - there isn't one vow you made that you kept, was there?



I have kept many "vows" and I get better at such things as I have matured.

So the only vow that matters now, and I say it is unquestioned, is that I intend to reform the unjust Child Support and Custody laws when I take the office of Governor.



MMDad said:


> Why should a voter believe anything you say if a solemn promise to God means nothing to you? Why, if you aren't even willing to admit it?



It seems to me that this is a totally different type of equation, as my intention of reforming the unjust Child Support is not a promise to God, and I do expect that any sensible voter must see that I am very sincere in my own relentless hatred for that evil system which can not be doubted.

If given the opportunity then I surely will do it.



MMDad said:


> There is no forgiveness without repentance.



That is correct, but we do not always want forgiveness to be given or received.



MMDad said:


> You still blame the state for the marriage that you ruined.



Really I do not.

I just blame the State for its thieving and inhuman Child Support enforcement.

What I said before is that the State did legally dissolve the marriage but that was a lie, and so that is not blame. 
.


----------



## Dutch6

VoteJP said:


> The State broke the marriage by legal process or else I would have remained legally married.
> 
> As to any "promise to God" then I figure God understands everything.
> 
> And sad yet true is that I was not strong in character at that time, so I was very weak indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I separated from the wife first.
> 
> And if I (or any spouse) dissolves the marriage then that is not the same as the State interfering and making a legal distinction in such relationships. Except that the State is playing God and violating the Institution of Church.
> 
> 
> 
> I have kept many "vows" and I get better at such things as I have matured.
> 
> So the only vow that matters now, and I say it is unquestioned, is that I intend to reform the unjust Child Support and Custody laws when I take the office of Governor.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that this is a totally different type of equation, as my intention of reforming the unjust Child Support is not a promise to God, and I do expect that any sensible voter must see that I am very sincere in my own relentless hatred for that evil system which can not be doubted.
> 
> If given the opportunity then I surely will do it.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct, but we do not always want forgiveness to be given or received.
> 
> 
> 
> Really I do not.
> 
> I just blame the State for its thieving and inhuman Child Support enforcement.
> 
> What I said before is that the State did legally dissolve the marriage but that was a lie, and so that is not blame.
> .


Well, I'm glad to say there are not enough worthless fathers and dead beat dads out there to vote you in.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Dutch6 said:


> Well, I'm glad to say there are not enough worthless fathers and dead beat dads out there to vote you in.



As in most cases of social, economic and political oppression then the parents being attacked by the laws are in no position to defend themselves or to fight back.

My own effort maxed out with a $1.59 can of spray paint with my self sacrifice, and most parents do not have the will that I had. 

As in the Civil War the African slaves could not fight for their own freedom against the white rulers, and in Germany the Jews could not truly fight back against the Nazis, and even today the separated parents do not have the power to fend off their oppressors.

I say the reform simply must be done by educated and decent American citizens to fight to stop the injustices and end the senseless persecution of parents and the destruction of families by the idiotic Child Support and Custody laws.

The parents might not be able to defend themselves, but their continued depredation will damage our entire society and soon it will be too late to reform as it will require some thing far more drastic.

.


----------



## Dutch6

VoteJP said:


> As in most cases of social, economic and political oppression then the parents being attacked by the laws are in no position to defend themselves or to fight back.
> 
> My own effort maxed out with a $1.59 can of spray paint with my self sacrifice, and most parents do not have the will that I had.
> 
> As in the Civil War the African slaves could not fight for their own freedom against the white rulers, and in Germany the Jews could not truly fight back against the Nazis, and even today the separated parents do not have the power to fend off their oppressors.
> 
> I say the reform simply must be done by educated and decent American citizens to fight to stop the injustices and end the senseless persecution of parents and the destruction of families by the idiotic Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> The parents might not be able to defend themselves, but their continued depredation will damage our entire society and soon it will be too late to reform as it will require some thing far more drastic.
> 
> .


If you can't care for children then don't have them. Your responsibility for your children does not stop at divorce. You made them you take care of them.


----------



## maxima87

VoteJP said:


> I say the reform simply must be done by educated and decent American citizens to fight to stop the injustices and end the senseless persecution of parents and the destruction of families by the idiotic Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Where are your followers?  Where are the folks that support you?  Why isn't any one agreeing with you?  Where are the people that are going to get you into office?  Why is it that you have nobody????  It can't be that we all are wrong...............


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



maxima87 said:


> Where are your followers?  Where are the folks that support you?  Why isn't any one agreeing with you?  Where are the people that are going to get you into office?  Why is it that you have nobody????  It can't be that we all are wrong...............



This is just an Internet forum and it is not a democracy here.

When you see and say about "everyone" disagreeing with me then it really is only a few outspoken posters here and not many at all.

In fact I did get 19,067 votes in the last election cycle 2008, and they never posted on these forums.

My method is in the way of "Alexander of Macedonia" who led the troops into battle at a fine point as even needle point, so that it breaks through the opposition and strikes at the heart.  

It can be that you all are indeed wrong, and I say you each probably already know that you are wrong, and the sting of fear is already taking hold.

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Dutch6 said:


> If you can't care for children then don't have them.



It is not your place and not the place of our Govt to tell citizens / parents when they can or must not have children.

You and the laws are way out of line.

And claiming the high cost-of-living to determine our normal human body functions is way out of line too. 



Dutch6 said:


> Your responsibility for your children does not stop at divorce.



It is the divorce that violates the parental responsibilities.

The legal divorce legally separates parents and legally removes children from their parents under the force of law. 



Dutch6 said:


> You made them you take care of them.



If that were true then the State laws and Courts would not be acting as the parents' overlord and ordering the parents around and ordering the parenting of children.

If we really want parents to do their own parenting then the law needs to get out of the parents' way.

.


----------



## Dutch6

VoteJP said:


> This is just an Internet forum and it is not a democracy here.
> 
> When you see and say about "everyone" disagreeing with me then it really is only a few outspoken posters here and not many at all.
> 
> In fact I did get 19,067 votes in the last election cycle 2008, and they never posted on these forums.
> 
> My method is in the way of "Alexander of Macedonia" who led the troops into battle at a fine point as even needle point, so that it breaks through the opposition and strikes at the heart.
> 
> It can be that you all are indeed wrong, and I say you each probably already know that you are wrong, and the sting of fear is already taking hold.
> 
> .


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I say the reform simply must be done by educated and decent American citizens


If anyone with those qualities ever enters the debate perhaps people will listen to them.

For now, you're the lone flag-bearer and there is zero prospect things will be improving for you.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Dutch6 said:


>



I must agree that it truly is funny, and the campaign is great fun to do.

We do need to keep a healthy sense of humor in these things.

Cheers.

.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Weighing in on the topic and having experience being the payER of child support for 13 years I have to say this:

There are seceral options for the payER to utilize in the unfortunate event of job loss, wage decrease, etc. The payER simply needs to contact the Child Support division of the courts and make arrangements. The payER will NEVER be totally exempt for monetary commitment to their children (at least I have never heard of it happening) so, in actuality, the courts have put systems in place to rationally be able to come to either a GUILTY or NOT-GUILTY decision.

Also, I think that a lot of problems (and I am raising this due to my own experience) could be avoided if Child Support payments were given out in the form of Debit Cards which would provide receipts to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent, and the state. I don't know how many times I have heard divorced friends (and myself) complain of problems with the custodial parent's spending of support monies.


----------



## LusbyMom

SG_Player1974 said:


> Weighing in on the topic and having experience being the payER of child support for 13 years I have to say this:
> 
> There are seceral options for the payER to utilize in the unfortunate event of job loss, wage decrease, etc. The payER simply needs to contact the Child Support division of the courts and make arrangements. The payER will NEVER be totally exempt for monetary commitment to their children (at least I have never heard of it happening) so, in actuality, the courts have put systems in place to rationally be able to come to either a GUILTY or NOT-GUILTY decision.
> 
> Also, I think that a lot of problems (and I am raising this due to my own experience) could be avoided if *Child Support payments were given out in the form of Debit Cards *which would provide receipts to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent, and the state. I don't know how many times I have heard divorced friends (and myself) complain of problems with the custodial parent's spending of support monies.



That's a bunch of crap IMO. If the child/children are being taken care of the CP has no reason to account for every penny.  I could see questions being raised if the kid wasn't being fed, didn't have clothes or a home to live in. 

Or lets say in my situation where I am owed an entire YEAR of CS. When I do get it.. should I have to account for it?


----------



## Jands

Try being a self employed sole proprietor trying to be a decent person to my child's mother. I have to borrow money to pay a very high child support obligation in this failing economy. I went to court for a modification and was told since I am my own boss I "could" be lying about my income. There fore was denied my request to pay support based on what the economy has provided me. I was not even granted a waiver of any kind while I spent almost 3 months in bed with a combination of viral phenomena and possible swine flu. Instead they tried putting me in jail. As someone that follows all laws, pays taxes and even volunteers for the community I don't think the current system works. I had a decent income when I settled for the amount i agreed to. Work slowed down substantially and my income was reduced. How is that fair? I pay this woman more per month than she has ever made in her life. She has a business that she makes money with but is not considered in my support. Same self employed job but the courts believe she makes nothing, even when caught in a lie on the stand.  

I would love for someone to re-work the child support system. Although in my certain situation I am rational enough to realize, if it was fair to me, then other people would be taken advantage of. With how many child support payee's there are that are not in my situation I believe any changes to the system would hurt the chances for these children. As unfair as it seems, it is as fair as it ever could be. The best thing you can do is stay on good terms with your ex, make your own arrangements, follow through with your deals and be civilized. With all the money it takes to hire attorneys you are putting their kids through college, why can't that be your kids going to college? The courts and attorneys should be a last resort. There is always mediation that you and the other parent can attend to resolve some issues.

My two cents


----------



## SG_Player1974

LusbyMom said:


> That's a bunch of crap IMO. If the child/children are being taken care of the CP has no reason to account for every penny.  I could see questions being raised if the kid wasn't being fed, didn't have clothes or a home to live in.
> 
> Or lets say in my situation where I am owed an entire YEAR of CS. When I do get it.. should I have to account for it?



I am not saying there should not be exceptions. NCPs should not be eligible for this is they fall TOO FAR into arrears. NCPs that DO keep up with their payments and have legitimate concerns about how their payment is being spent SHOULD have the right to monitor it. 

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH IT!

I have been the victim of this many, many times as well as good friends I know. The CP spends the support on "throw-away" items or items for themselves then go running to the courts with a sob story to get the payments increased.


----------



## Jands

They can not get more money because they don't think they got enough. There is a formula they use based on your income to figure your current child support. There must be a 15% increase in either parents income to challenge your current support obligation. They can not give you a payment based on anything else.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Jands said:


> Try being a self employed sole proprietor trying to be a decent person to my child's mother. I have to borrow money to pay a very high child support obligation in this failing economy. I went to court for a modification and was told since I am my own boss I "could" be lying about my income. There fore was denied my request to pay support based on what the economy has provided me. I was not even granted a waiver of any kind while I spent almost 3 months in bed with a combination of viral phenomena and possible swine flu. Instead they tried putting me in jail. As someone that follows all laws, pays taxes and even volunteers for the community I don't think the current system works. I had a decent income when I settled for the amount i agreed to. Work slowed down substantially and my income was reduced. How is that fair? I pay this woman more per month than she has ever made in her life. She has a business that she makes money with but is not considered in my support. Same self employed job but the courts believe she makes nothing, even when caught in a lie on the stand.
> 
> I would love for someone to re-work the child support system. Although in my certain situation I am rational enough to realize, if it was fair to me, then other people would be taken advantage of. With how many child support payee's there are that are not in my situation I believe any changes to the system would hurt the chances for these children. As unfair as it seems, it is as fair as it ever could be. *The best thing you can do is stay on good terms with your ex, make your own arrangements, follow through with your deals and be civilized. *With all the money it takes to hire attorneys you are putting their kids through college, why can't that be your kids going to college? The courts and attorneys should be a last resort. There is always mediation that you and the other parent can attend to resolve some issues.
> 
> My two cents



Very good post. I read what you said and I definitely agree with you on most of what you have said. I do however, disagree with the bolded statement. Unfortunately, in this day and age, a lawyer is a necessity. You and your ex could have every little detail worked out and have a written agreement that you will pay her $500 a month (for example) and both of you are in agreement.
The problem is that the JUDGE is the one who sets the amount of support. You can both go into court with smiles on your faces and the judge can say "Nah.... you need to pay $1200/mo.!" or he/she can say "Nah..... you can pay $100/mo.!" They have all the power and all that written agreement is worth is toilet paper!!!


----------



## SG_Player1974

Jands said:


> They can not get more money because they don't think they got enough. There is a formula they use based on your income to figure your current child support. There must be a 15% increase in either parents income to challenge your current support obligation. They can not give you a payment based on anything else.



Bottom line is that the JUDGE has final say. My friend was divorced and support ordered here in STM and he was taken back for review 5 times in the last 3 years! His support was raised 3 times out of 5 and he HAS NOT gotten a 15% income shift FOR SURE!

When it comes to support enforcement laws, it is all up to interpretation by the JUDGE!


----------



## LusbyMom

SG_Player1974 said:


> I am not saying there should not be exceptions. NCPs should not be eligible for this is they fall TOO FAR into arrears. NCPs that DO keep up with their payments and have legitimate concerns about how their payment is being spent SHOULD have the right to monitor it.
> 
> IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH IT!
> 
> I have been the victim of this many, many times as well as good friends I know. The CP spends the support on "throw-away" items or items for themselves then go running to the courts with a sob story to get the payments increased.




I have nothing to hide.. but I am not going to account for it. It would be to difficult to use that debit card for purchases for my kid. CS is for food, clothing, mortgage, etc.. So would I grocery shop and pay a portion with the debit card? 

I think a law like that would cause even more headaches and some parents would be fighting about each and every purchase. 

But like I said if the child is getting nothing, has nothing than then it should be looked into..  

Maybe I see it as ridiculous because my kids always come first.. I have, will and would go without to make sure they are taken care of first. You on the other hand live on the other side of it.


----------



## SG_Player1974

LusbyMom said:


> I have nothing to hide.. but I am not going to account for it. It would be to difficult to use that debit card for purchases for my kid. CS is for food, clothing, mortgage, etc.. So would I grocery shop and pay a portion with the debit card?
> 
> I think a law like that would cause even more headaches and some parents would be fighting about each and every purchase.
> 
> But like I said if the child is getting nothing, has nothing than then it should be looked into..
> 
> Maybe I see it as ridiculous because my kids always come first.. I have, will and would go without to make sure they are taken care of first. *You on the other hand live on the other side of it.*



Very high opinion derrived from a few online forum posts DON'T YOU THINK? So basically, what you are saying is, I really don't care for my children because I want to ensure that the hard earned money that I provide TO THEM is actually being used on THEM???
Please explain your statement above and how you were able to come to this conclusion even though YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN MET ME?!


----------



## LusbyMom

SG_Player1974 said:


> I am not saying there should not be exceptions. NCPs should not be eligible for this is they fall TOO FAR into arrears. NCPs that DO keep up with their payments and have legitimate concerns about how their payment is being spent SHOULD have the right to monitor it.
> 
> IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH IT!
> 
> *I have been the victim of this many, many times as well as good friends I know. The CP spends the support on "throw-away" items or items for themselves then go running to the courts with a sob story to get the payments increased.*





SG_Player1974 said:


> Very high opinion derrived from a few online forum posts DON'T YOU THINK? So basically, what you are saying is, I really don't care for my children because I want to ensure that the hard earned money that I provide TO THEM is actually being used on THEM???
> Please explain your statement above and how you were able to come to this conclusion even though YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN MET ME?!




In the bolded part above you stated you had been the victim... I took that as you were supporting your kids and they weren't getting the benefits of it. 

I was saying it's silly to account for it.. because as a parent who does for my kids first I don't see how others don't. I was under the impression that you would like to see an account because your kids were not getting first. So I can understand how you wouldn't find it silly. 

Does that make sense? Or did I screw it up again?


----------



## Geruch

*This is quite refreshing to what I been reading.*



SG_Player1974 said:


> Also, I think that a lot of problems (and I am raising this due to my own experience) could be avoided if *Child Support payments were given out in the form of Debit Cards* which would provide receipts to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent, and the state. I don't know how many times I have heard divorced friends (and myself) complain of problems with the custodial parent's spending of support monies.



I like the idea of a Debit Card, as it would act like a bank card (right ?) Is that the way your thinking?  A Debit Card with a Visa logo on it. It can be use just about anywhere. People have multiple credit cards to pay for different things. I don't see where there be a problem with it. Maybe a inconvenient at best.

At this time, I have no concern's on how my ex spends the child support. She works as well as I do. I know she's also spending some of her money on the children. There's no way to really know what exactly she's spending the child support money on. I can't honesty say she's spending some on herself and not the child. But it would give me some insight on to what she is spending the child support money on. 

When the non custodial parent say, The ex is spending the money on themselves. How do they really know when the custodial parent is working? Just seem like that would be hard to prove, just saying.

LusbyMom - With all do respect. Not every custodial parent is like you.


----------



## SG_Player1974

LusbyMom said:


> In the bolded part above you stated you had been the victim... I took that as you were supporting your kids and they weren't getting the benefits of it.
> 
> I was saying it's silly to account for it.. because as a parent who does for my kids first I don't see how others don't. I was under the impression that you would like to see an account because your kids were not getting first. So I can understand how you wouldn't find it silly.
> 
> Does that make sense? Or did I screw it up again?



I understand your point now. You have to realize that there are not a lot of Mom's out there like you. There are some real characters with children. I really do not see any problem with using the debt card if there is nothing to hide. Just about everywhere takes them!


----------



## maxima87

*Debit Card*

Actually there is a debit card that you can receive for your child support payments.  It is provided by Bank of America.  I'm not sure if you can enroll in online access for it to track the spending, but perhaps you could look into it.  I would also wonder if there are fees associated with it?  

I don't think that the CP should have to track every penny that they spend on the child either.  If the child is being taken care of is it really necessary to know if you paid for a Happy Meal or how much you contributed to clothes?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



SG_Player1974 said:


> Weighing in on the topic and having experience being the payER of child support for 13 years I have to say this:



Welcome to this discussion.



SG_Player1974 said:


> There are seceral options for the payER to utilize in the unfortunate event of job loss, wage decrease, etc. The payER simply needs to contact the Child Support division of the courts and make arrangements. The payER will NEVER be totally exempt for monetary commitment to their children (at least I have never heard of it happening) so, in actuality, the courts have put systems in place to rationally be able to come to either a GUILTY or NOT-GUILTY decision.



What you and the Court claims looks right and proper but it is not.

In a demand for money as Child Support is - then it is not an equation of GUILTY or Not GUILTY, and as it is now the parents do not get a fair trial and no possibility of any rightful defense.  

As it is now the parents are GUILTY just for being too poor to pay the Child Support, and GUILTY if they are sick or disabled or unemployed or underemployed or any reason that the c/s can NOT be paid means the parent is GUILTY because it is only ONLY a trial of did one pay or not. 

And that GUILTY or Not GUILTY system denies any defense of the great injustices, as in the custodial being financially superior, the custodial remarrying, the neglect or abuse of the children, the fact that the c/s money is not used for the children, or the paying parents' damages done by the thievery, and all forms of justice are completely subverted by that charade of a trial where parents are GUILTY or Not GUILTY based solely on if they paid or not. 



SG_Player1974 said:


> Also, I think that a lot of problems (and I am raising this due to my own experience) could be avoided if Child Support payments were given out in the form of Debit Cards which would provide receipts to the custodial parent, non-custodial parent, and the state. I don't know how many times I have heard divorced friends (and myself) complain of problems with the custodial parent's spending of support monies.



I like this idea of a Debit Card that tracks and reports where every penny gets spent on the children or when it is not.

Child Support is not meant to be mis-used to pay the custodial's rent or for the custodial's car payments as c/s is not to be used as spousal support.


----------



## hvp05

Gosh, I was hoping this thread would fade away.   



VoteJP said:


> I like this idea of a Debit Card that tracks and reports where every penny gets spent on the children or when it is not.


I think it seems like a good idea, at least if a parent has been shown to spend the CS on frivolous items.  However, it's not practical for the reason previously mentioned, trying to separate the child's purchases from those of the parents would be difficult if not impossible.

But hey, if you like this idea I think it should be fully implemented... maybe then you will shut your yapper and crawl into your hole forever.   



> Child Support is not meant to be mis-used to pay the custodial's rent or for the custodial's car payments as c/s is not to be used as spousal support.


Uh, where do you think these children are living and being transported around?  Isn't that all part of "providing custody" as you have gone on about at such length?


----------



## SG_Player1974

maxima87 said:


> Actually there is a debit card that you can receive for your child support payments.  It is provided by Bank of America.  I'm not sure if you can enroll in online access for it to track the spending, but perhaps you could look into it.  I would also wonder if there are fees associated with it?
> 
> *I don't think that the CP should have to track every penny that they spend on the child either.*  If the child is being taken care of is it really necessary to know if you paid for a Happy Meal or how much you contributed to clothes?



Why is everyone posting like they will be the ones collecting receipts and having to mail out statements every month???
These statements would be provided by the Debt Card/Bank that the card is issued from.
I think that this would eliminate ALOT of problems with the C/S system. It would allow the courts, CP, and NCP to see what a REASONABLE monthly expenditure is for the child/children. As it stands now, the NCP must pay based on a percentage system. Well, what if a NCP with a child makes $100,000 per year and spends 20% of that on the child per year . Does that mean that a NCP that makes only $35,000 should have to give up 20% also? What if the latter is a thrifty spender due to their lower income?
There should not be an "across the board" payment percentage and it should not be equal for everyone. This is where the Debt Card comes into play.


----------



## SG_Player1974

hvp05 said:


> Gosh, I was hoping this thread would fade away.
> 
> I think it seems like a good idea, at least if a parent has been shown to spend the CS on frivolous items.  *However, it's not practical for the reason previously mentioned, trying to separate the child's purchases from those of the parents would be difficult if not impossible.*
> But hey, if you like this idea I think it should be fully implemented... maybe then you will shut your yapper and crawl into your hole forever.
> 
> Uh, where do you think these children *are living and being transported around?*  Isn't that all part of "providing custody" as you have gone on about at such length?



I am not favoring you or the other guy however, I have a reply to some of your comments.
I think it is rather common sense and simple to know whether or not the expenditure is for the children or not. Bottom line is that there will be some things that are questionable (milk at the grocery, school supplies, etc.) but there are a LOT of things that are not and this is where it comes into play.
As for your second item, I have a very narrow opinion on this topic and it is this.... If a judge can tell the NCP (father in this case) that they do not care if they are homeless and walking back and forth to work, then I DO NOT believe that the C/S should go toward the home or the vehicle. If the NCP has to live in squaller in order to pay for the CP's over-sized home and Range Rover, Do you think that is fair? I have seen this ALOT! 
And I know that you are going to fire back with the "I only do what is best for my children" ideal however, MANY, MANY, MANY CPs DO NOT!!!!


----------



## LusbyMom

SG_Player1974 said:


> Why is everyone posting like they will be the ones collecting receipts and having to mail out statements every month???
> These statements would be provided by the Debt Card/Bank that the card is issued from.
> I think that this would eliminate ALOT of problems with the C/S system. It would allow the courts, CP, and NCP to see what a REASONABLE monthly expenditure is for the child/children. As it stands now, the NCP must pay based on a percentage system. Well, what if a NCP with a child makes $100,000 per year and spends 20% of that on the child per year . Does that mean that a NCP that makes only $35,000 should have to give up 20% also? What if the latter is a thrifty spender due to their lower income?
> There should not be an "across the board" payment percentage and it should not be equal for everyone. This is where the Debt Card comes into play.



So when I need to pay for my child's lunches how would I account for that with a debit card? Or when my child has a field trip? Or when I grocery shop should I used two carts? One for my family's food and one for my kid? When I pay the electric bill should I pay in 2 payments? Same with the house phone and kid's cell phone? Or sports? Or gas to take her to her many things? 

What should be done about the deadbeats who are not broke and just refuse to pay? Some of them just don't pay because they don't want to "support" the custodial parent. I would like to know how many people out there can pay their mortgage, food, electric, etc, etc, etc, with a whopping $500 a month.


----------



## SG_Player1974

LusbyMom said:


> So when I need to pay for my child's lunches how would I account for that with a debit card? No, you simply pay it! Technically, it is a luxury to purchase lunch at school. Or when my child has a field trip? Could be prearranged with both parents to pay additional cost out of pocket. Or when I grocery shop should I used two carts? One for my family's food and one for my kid? No, you can seperate it at the register. When I pay the electric bill should I pay in 2 payments? No, electric bill is part of household payments. Money for that would fall under spousal support. Same with the house phone and kid's cell phone?  House phone falls under spousal support and cell phone is a luxury! Or sports? Or gas to take her to her many things? Both luxuries and can be prearranged to come out of pocket.
> 
> What should be done about the deadbeats who are not broke and just refuse to pay? Some of them just don't pay because they don't want to "support" the custodial parent. I would like to know how many people out there can pay their mortgage, food, electric, etc, etc, etc, with a whopping $500 a month.  This is a good question.... how about we ask the NCPs that are told by the courts to do JUST THAT!?



Hope that helps.


----------



## maxima87

What about the NCP that rarely ever makes a payment?  I'll be damned if I ever will account for the $9 to $30 child support payments that I receive, when and if I do get them.  To ask that would be ignorant.  I do and will spend the money as I see fit.  It is put in my checking account and used towards whatever I normally do.  If it ends up on the electric bill so be it.  If it ends up being put towards something for me...so be it.  In the end, I take care of the children so how I spend the pocket change is on me.


----------



## SG_Player1974

maxima87 said:


> What about the NCP that rarely ever makes a payment?  I'll be damned if I ever will account for the $9 to $30 child support payments that I receive, when and if I do get them.  To ask that would be ignorant.  I do and will spend the money as I see fit.  It is put in my checking account and used towards whatever I normally do.  If it ends up on the electric bill so be it.  If it ends up being put towards something for me...so be it.  In the end, I take care of the children so how I spend the pocket change is on me.



Sorry to hear that you are the victim of a deadbeat however, I have NEVER heard of someone getting that low of an amount even when the NCP is unemployed!!!
Also, I am sure that if you received your due instead of the ""pennies" that you get now that YOU WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE DEBT CARD RIGHT?
This is EXACTLY why it is needed and thank you for making my point. 

And YES.... I think you should have to account for the $9 to $30 per month because from what it sounds like in your post, you are the poster child for why it is needed!!!!!


----------



## maxima87

SG_Player1974 said:


> Sorry to hear that you are the victim of a deadbeat however, I have NEVER heard of someone getting that low of an amount even when the NCP is unemployed!!!
> Also, I am sure that if you received your due instead of the ""pennies" that you get now that YOU WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE DEBT CARD RIGHT?
> This is EXACTLY why it is needed and thank you for making my point.
> 
> And YES.... I think you should have to account for the $9 to $30 per month because from what it sounds like in your post, you are the poster child for why it is needed!!!!!



Actually, you have heard of it because I just told you.  Did I say that was the court ordered amount?  Nope.  Sure didn't.  Said that is what I received.  

And if I got the amount due every month...it would *still* go in my checking account and used for whatever comes up.  I am not seperating purchases, that is just stupid.  If my child needs something, they get it...point blank.  Their needs as well as most wants are taken care of.  I am not going into a seperate *child support card* to make the purchase.  

And if this makes me a *posterchild* for your little rant...SO BE IT!  

I do not have to and will not account for what I spend on my children.  And not once has the NCP questioned what I do.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> I think it seems like a good idea, at least if a parent has been shown to spend the CS on frivolous items.  However, it's not practical for the reason previously mentioned, trying to separate the child's purchases from those of the parents would be difficult if not impossible.
> 
> Uh, where do you think these children are living and being transported around?  Isn't that all part of "providing custody" as you have gone on about at such length?



I do not see any reason for not separating the expenditures except for Custodials that want to mis-use the money.

Being Court ordered to have custody simply must include providing housing and basic needs or else they have no business having the custody of children.

A Custodial parent that mis-uses the Child Support money to pay their rent and car payments and luxury items surely does not want any accountability as like a Debit Card.

And Child Support is not even meant to pay 100 percent of the child's needs, so making certain that the Child Support actually and factually does go to the support of the child(ren) is not asking too much.

Like Food Stamps Debit Card is only for food, and they can not buy household supplies or cigarettes or anything but only food, and it works fine that way.

The Child Support needs to go only to and for the children, and a Debit Card could make an accounting accordingly.

.


----------



## maxima87

According to the MD Child Support page...CS is for:  Child support is a court-ordered payment requiring one parent who does not have custody of the child to the other parent who does have custody of the child. A court may also order child support to be paid when parents share custody of a child. Child support payments *help pay for the costs associated with raising the child.* Children have the right to benefit from the incomes of both parents.

MSN offers a good breakdown on cost associated with raising a child. .

So your point is CS shouldn't be used for anything other than the childs what??


----------



## SG_Player1974

maxima87 said:


> Actually, you have heard of it because I just told you.  Did I say that was the court ordered amount?  Nope.  Sure didn't.  Said that is what I received.
> 
> And if I got the amount due every month...it would *still* go in my checking account and used for whatever comes up.  I am not seperating purchases, that is just stupid.  If my child needs something, they get it...point blank.  Their needs as well as most wants are taken care of.  I am not going into a seperate *child support card* to make the purchase.
> 
> And if this makes me a *posterchild* for your little rant...SO BE IT!
> 
> I do not have to and will not account for what I spend on my children.  *And not once has the NCP questioned what I do.*




If I got away with giving you that much... I wouldn't ask many questions either!!!!!


----------



## maxima87

*Better yet...*

$9.17  04/20/2010
$29.26 04/06/2010 
$27.49 03/23/2010 
$17.31 03/09/2010 
$26.47 02/24/2010 
$100.00 02/24/2010 
$19.78 02/09/2010 
$21.19 01/26/2010 
$36.32 01/12/2010 

How about the NCP accounts to me the balance of his $256.00 court ordered payment that he did not make each month???  How about *he* tells me what he spent his $$ on that didn't go to the child.  Now that is a real good idea to me!!!!!

And while you are seeking this information for us CP that don't recieve yet you want us to account for every penny...find out what he spent all the money on for the years we DONT get.  And then while your at it...figure out how my child would have gotten all their needs met if it wasn't solely for ME! And then...account for that.


----------



## SG_Player1974

maxima87 said:


> According to the MD Child Support page...CS is for:  Child support is a court-ordered payment requiring one parent who does not have custody of the child to the other parent who does have custody of the child. A court may also order child support to be paid when parents share custody of a child. Child support payments *help pay for the costs associated with raising the child.* Children have the right to benefit from the incomes of both parents.
> 
> MSN offers a good breakdown on cost associated with raising a child. .
> 
> So your point is CS shouldn't be used for anything other than the childs what??



So.......

Cell phones are needed to raise a child?
Soccer games are needed to raise a child?
Gas to get to soccer games are needed to raise a child?
Lunches at school are needed to raise a child?
Extravagant cars and houses are needed to raise a child?
THE CHANGE YOU SPEND ON YOURSELF is needed to raise a child?

I could go on and on and on.........

Please DO NOT quote Maryland Law to me after ranting on your posts about how you spend the money on yourself....even if it is just $30!!!!


----------



## SG_Player1974

maxima87 said:


> $9.17  04/20/2010
> $29.26 04/06/2010
> $27.49 03/23/2010
> $17.31 03/09/2010
> $26.47 02/24/2010
> $100.00 02/24/2010
> $19.78 02/09/2010
> $21.19 01/26/2010
> $36.32 01/12/2010
> 
> How about the NCP accounts to me the balance of his $256.00 court ordered payment that he did not make each month???  How about *he* tells me what he spent his $$ on that didn't go to the child.  Now that is a real good idea to me!!!!!
> 
> And while you are seeking this information for us CP that don't recieve yet you want us to account for every penny...find out what he spent all the money on for the years we DONT get.  And then while your at it...figure out how my child would have gotten all their needs met if it wasn't solely for ME! And then...account for that.




Sounds to me like your NCP is giving you the run around. I only have one question about it:

How many times have you contacted your case worker and told them this? I know it is frustrating however, if your support is COURT ORDERED then all you have to do is contact them and they will start tracking arrears. You may not see that money in the near future but at least you can get it on the record.

There are deadbeats out there that circumvent the system and it is a tragedy but that should not discount the millions of GOOD NCPs that pay on time and still get abused.

And, as far as the reporting goes. I would have to assume that YOU DID AGREE TO BE THE CP...RIGHT? That to me means that you agreed to take on the responsibility to care for the child. This would merely be an addition to that. If you don't want to or cannot handle it, notify the courts and see if the NCP can? I know I would do it if I could have custody of my kids!


----------



## maxima87

SG_Player1974 said:


> So.......
> 
> Cell phones are needed to raise a child?
> Soccer games are needed to raise a child?
> Gas to get to soccer games are needed to raise a child?
> Lunches at school are needed to raise a child?
> Extravagant cars and houses are needed to raise a child?
> THE CHANGE YOU SPEND ON YOURSELF is needed to raise a child?
> 
> I could go on and on and on.........
> 
> Please DO NOT quote Maryland Law to me after ranting on your posts about how you spend the money on yourself....even if it is just $30!!!!



I said, and will say again...all the money goes into one account and it spent how I see fit.

Cell phones are needed to raise a child? Mine has one.  Your point?
Football games are needed to raise a child? Nope, but sports are worth my $$.
Gas to get to football games are needed to raise a child? Gonna have to have gas to take your child anywhere.  Guess they shouldn't go to that play after school unless they walk!!
Lunches at school are needed to raise a child? YES!!!  Whether you buy a hot lunch at school or pack lunch it costs money.  Do you expect your child not to eat while they're at school?  Shame on you!!!!
Extravagant cars and houses are needed to raise a child? Do you have a car and home?  Who said extravagant?  YOU!
THE CHANGE YOU SPEND ON YOURSELF is needed to raise a child?  Once again, if it is in my account it will be spent however I see fit.  Did I say I am running off to Atlantic City with every bit of change I get.  Sure didn't.  

You sound like a very bitter person that has to pay CS!  Perhaps you should get custody and have support paid to you.


----------



## SG_Player1974

maxima87 said:


> I said, and will say again...all the money goes into one account and it spent how I see fit.
> 
> Cell phones are needed to raise a child? Mine has one.  Your point? My point is stop whining about only getting $30 a month when you are shoveling out money for a luxury that is really not needed!
> Football games are needed to raise a child? Nope, but sports are worth my $$. Refer to above response.
> Gas to get to football games are needed to raise a child? Gonna have to have gas to take your child anywhere.  Guess they shouldn't go to that play after school unless they walk!! You are receiving support right? Last time I checked, you could gas up your vehicle with a debt card.
> Lunches at school are needed to raise a child? YES!!!  Whether you buy a hot lunch at school or pack lunch it costs money.  Do you expect your child not to eat while they're at school?  Shame on you!!!! No...however, I do expect them to eat lunch from the grocery money that I pay you. If you are too lazy to pack them a lunch then that is on you...not me!
> Extravagant cars and houses are needed to raise a child? Do you have a car and home?  Who said extravagant?  YOU! Once again, you do receive support right? I have to live somewhere too AND provide a place for the children to stay when I have custody/visitation. Exactly how much are you giving me for their stay at MY house or in MY car?
> THE CHANGE YOU SPEND ON YOURSELF is needed to raise a child?  Once again, if it is in my account it will be spent however I see fit.  Did I say I am running off to Atlantic City with every bit of change I get.  Sure didn't. No you didn't....And as long as that "change" is spent on the children then you should have no problems.



It sounds to me like you are just an angry CP because your NCP has stiffed you for a long time and you just want to vent.


----------



## maxima87

SG_Player1974 said:


> Sounds to me like your NCP is giving you the run around. I only have one question about it:
> 
> How many times have you contacted your case worker and told them this? I know it is frustrating however, if your support is COURT ORDERED then all you have to do is contact them and they will start tracking arrears. You may not see that money in the near future but at least you can get it on the record.
> 
> There are deadbeats out there that circumvent the system and it is a tragedy but that should not discount the millions of GOOD NCPs that pay on time and still get abused.
> 
> And, as far as the reporting goes. I would have to assume that YOU DID AGREE TO BE THE CP...RIGHT? That to me means that you agreed to take on the responsibility to care for the child. This would merely be an addition to that. If you don't want to or cannot handle it, notify the courts and see if the NCP can? I know I would do it if I could have custody of my kids!



See, I have no problem being the CP.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  As far as the run around...he knows how they system here works and Master Harris, well, he is a joke as far as enforcement.  

Regarding venting, no, wasn't looking for an opportunity to vent.  I just don't believe that documenting every expense is realistic nor necessary.  To me, the CS is a complete joke in this county.  

As far as having a safe home for the NCP to have visits, I wouldn't know about that as it has been over 4 years since the last one. 

And make no mistake about it, my children have no need that is going unmet, up to and including their savings accounts and college funds.  Those will be with or without the 'change' coming in. 

And why can you not be the full custodian?  More and more men are becoming the CP.


----------



## Geruch

Naturally custodial parents don't like to tell others what they spend the child support money on. 

"I will spend the money as I see fit." Is a perfect example of that.

I to think a cell phone is a luxury. Neither one of my children have one.
When their able to work and pay for it. Then that's when they will get one if they want.


----------



## SG_Player1974

maxima87 said:


> See, I have no problem being the CP.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  As far as the run around...he knows how they system here works and Master Harris, well, he is a joke as far as enforcement.
> 
> Regarding venting, no, wasn't looking for an opportunity to vent.  I just don't believe that documenting every expense is realistic nor necessary.  To me, the CS is a complete joke in this county. And yet you posted earlier about wanting to document the NCPs income and spending. Why not the other way around?
> 
> As far as having a safe home for the NCP to have visits, I wouldn't know about that as it has been over 4 years since the last one. I am very sorry to hear about that. That is the exact opposite of my views. Try to look at it from a GOOD NCPs point of view.
> 
> And make no mistake about it, my children have no need that is going unmet, up to and including their savings accounts and college funds.  Those will be with or without the 'change' coming in. Once again, try to remember that there a A LOT of CPs out there that are nothing like you and try to exploit EVERYTHING. Good on you for looking out for your children's best interests though.
> 
> And why can you not be the full custodian?  More and more men are becoming the CP. If you are asking this question, it tells me two things.... You are the Mother.... and you DO NOT have many Male CP friends.



One of my friend's ex's was caught with herion in her house and the court WOULD NOT change custody however, they had NO PROBLEM raising his support to provide the CP with a chance to "Go to school" a.k.a. Buy more heroin! With the debt card....this would NEVER happen.


----------



## Jands

The courts have a hard time with this issue. They have basically made everything across the board (supposedly) equal and based on percentages. If they were to do what was suggested here with the debit card, would it be fair if the card showed that you were paying to little and got it increased on you? I keep seeing things about the house and cars and such and wonder how well you could raise a child if you spent every dime you had on them and did not provide a roof over there head, a vehicle to transport them (if nothing else but in an extreme emergency), or fed them everyday. What exactly would you provide your children if I gave you $256 a month? Now take out being able to buy a full gallon of milk to share and buy your child a 1/2 gallon instead or try buying a single chicken breast for their dinner instead of the economical value pack. Maybe they should have their own source of heat instead of using the household heat? That is right though, that is someone else s responsibility. I guess they should call child support something else? Maybe child supplement support. 

You do have a valid concept though. Your execution is way out of line though. The child support laws were basically established many years ago. They have been changed a bit here and there but are still set up as the main support for the child. In an age where it takes 2 incomes to run a household how can it be fair? Just because the other parent remarries or has a live in partner does not mean they have agreed to take care of that child. To be honest that is where the change should be made. If you are with a partner that has a child and you move in together or get remarried, that person's income should become part of the equation. For either party. 

Saying you have a right to know where the money is spent is just foolish. Do you go back to people you give gifts to and make sure they are using it right? Do you go to you mortgage company to see how they are using your payment? Or Burger King for that matter? After you PAY what the court says you owe, It is not your business anymore. Asking for that tells me you want extra control of a women you are not with. To be able to tell her how to spend her money and jump through extra hops to please you is what you are suggesting here. 

My two cents


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



maxima87 said:


> $9.17  04/20/2010
> $29.26 04/06/2010
> $27.49 03/23/2010
> $17.31 03/09/2010
> $26.47 02/24/2010
> $100.00 02/24/2010
> $19.78 02/09/2010
> $21.19 01/26/2010
> $36.32 01/12/2010
> 
> How about the NCP accounts to me the balance of his $256.00 court ordered payment that he did not make each month???  How about *he* tells me what he spent his $$ on that didn't go to the child.  Now that is a real good idea to me!!!!!
> 
> And while you are seeking this information for us CP that don't recieve yet you want us to account for every penny...find out what he spent all the money on for the years we DONT get.  And then while your at it...figure out how my child would have gotten all their needs met if it wasn't solely for ME! And then...account for that.



What those numbers do tell us is that her children's Dad is dead-broke, and he pays those small amounts just to keep out of jail, and if he had more then the law would take more and the law would not ask for his permission nor consent.

And still worse is that this Mom tells us that her children and herself have everything they need along with many extras, so we have a Child Support system that robs and plunders the children's Dad just to pay a Mom that does not need the money.

It makes sense that the Mom wants to rob and steal from her ex but it makes no sense for the State to have laws that empower her wicked demands, or that hurt the fathers in this way, and in the process the children are lawfully alienated from their Dad which creates a maladapted adult out of those abused children.

And all research claims that absent fathers are a huge problem in raising healthy children, and yet all the custodial and the laws want to do is to rob and steal the Dad's money, and then pay that Child Support loot to a remarried Mom that spends it on luxuries while crying for more. 

The system is dead-wrong.

.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> What those numbers do tell us is that her children's Dad is dead-broke,


Not paying child support does NOT say you are unable to pay.

You prove that.  Your son proves that.

Sorry, you're just spouting lies again.


----------



## LusbyMom

SG_Player1974 said:


> Hope that helps.





Who says school lunch is a luxury? 

Field trip? Yeah I am certain if I called the NCP and asked for half of field trip money he would cough it up  

You want to separate food at the register? Seriously? So do I ring up the total and then divide it by the number of people in my family and ask the employee to put x amount of dollars on the debit card? 

Sorry but electric is not spousal support.. What about my water bill? Should I let my kid not shower? Or do I get to divide that bill up also? Since the house phone is my responsibility then please make sure my ex doesn't call it.. since I pay for it. 

When I clothes shop for my kid where should I do that? If I take her to Hollister is that a luxury? Or should I go to Wal-Mart? Or maybe the NCP will throw a fit because I didn't go to the thrift store. 

I assure you my ex isn't living off of $500 a month.. and even if he was.. so what.. I do what it takes to make sure my kid has what is needed, so should he. I pay for all sport and all insurance and medical..


----------



## LusbyMom

Geruch said:


> Naturally custodial parents don't like to tell others what they spend the child support money on.
> 
> "I will spend the money as I see fit." Is a perfect example of that.
> 
> I to think a cell phone is a luxury. Neither one of my children have one.
> When their able to work and pay for it. Then that's when they will get one if they want.



My kid has a cell phone for my own peace of mind.. I don't see it as a luxury. My kid is very active in sports and extracurriculars.. and the cell phone comes in handy for that. I do love the fact that I can set a contact list and only the numbers in that list can be called or can call into it.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> *What those numbers do tell us is that her children's Dad is dead-broke*, and he pays those small amounts just to keep out of jail, and if he had more then the law would take more and the law would not ask for his permission nor consent.
> 
> And still worse is that this Mom tells us that her children and herself have everything they need along with many extras, so we have a Child Support system that robs and plunders the children's Dad just to pay a Mom that does not need the money.
> 
> It makes sense that the Mom wants to rob and steal from her ex but it makes no sense for the State to have laws that empower her wicked demands, or that hurt the fathers in this way, and in the process the children are lawfully alienated from their Dad which creates a maladapted adult out of those abused children.
> 
> And all research claims that absent fathers are a huge problem in raising healthy children, and yet all the custodial and the laws want to do is to rob and steal the Dad's money, and then pay that Child Support loot to a remarried Mom that spends it on luxuries while crying for more.
> 
> The system is dead-wrong.
> 
> .




Why is he dead broke? Maybe he should get a JOB


----------



## Geruch

LusbyMom said:


> My kid has a cell phone for my own peace of mind.. I don't see it as a luxury. My kid is very active in sports and extracurriculars.. and the cell phone comes in handy for that. I do love the fact that I can set a contact list and only the numbers in that list can be called or can call into it.



Thanks great, that your children have cell phones. Don't mine me.
I'm just a bit old fashion in a sense or just not as hip like the young folks. 

I can remember back when there wasn't a such thing as a cell phone. Not once in those 18 years that I lived at home. I never had to called home for a ER. Beside, My ex likes to live on a budget. She always did know how to strength a dollar. I have a cell phone, most of the time it's in the glove box and  it's turn off. 

What can I say, I'm not much for talking on the phone.


----------



## Geruch

This_person said:


> Not paying child support does NOT say you are unable to pay.
> 
> You prove that.  Your son proves that.
> 
> Sorry, you're just spouting lies again.



I tend to agree. 

There are some non custodial parent that will work under the table for 
cash money, just in hopes that won't have to pay child support.

I like to see how many are actually dead broke. The proof in the pudding.
I think the most complain is that some think their paying to much per month.

You take care of your children when your together. I don't get where  that should have to stop just because you separate or get divorce. When I pay my child support, at least I feel I'm doing my part. Like I said, I'm a bit old fashion. You stand up and be a man. You take care of his children. Children shouldn't have to suffer, just because two adults couldn't make it work.


----------



## Vince

1068 posts in this thread and no one has learned that you can't argue with that idiot JPC.   And from the looks of the posts, everyone in here is saying the same thing in respect to child care and support....with the exception of the idiot.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Jands said:


> The courts have a hard time with this issue. They have basically made everything across the board (supposedly) equal and based on percentages. If they were to do what was suggested here with the debit card, would it be fair if the card showed that you were paying to little and got it increased on you? I keep seeing things about the house and cars and such and wonder how well you could raise a child if you spent every dime you had on them and did not provide a roof over there head, a vehicle to transport them (if nothing else but in an extreme emergency), or fed them everyday. What exactly would you provide your children if I gave you $256 a month? Now take out being able to buy a full gallon of milk to share and buy your child a 1/2 gallon instead or try buying a single chicken breast for their dinner instead of the economical value pack. Maybe they should have their own source of heat instead of using the household heat? That is right though, that is someone else s responsibility. I guess they should call child support something else? Maybe child supplement support.
> 
> You do have a valid concept though. Your execution is way out of line though. The child support laws were basically established many years ago. They have been changed a bit here and there but are still set up as the main support for the child. In an age where it takes 2 incomes to run a household how can it be fair? Just because the other parent remarries or has a live in partner does not mean they have agreed to take care of that child. To be honest that is where the change should be made. If you are with a partner that has a child and you move in together or get remarried, that person's income should become part of the equation. For either party.
> 
> *Saying you have a right to know where the money is spent is just foolish.* Do you go back to people you give gifts to and make sure they are using it right? Do you go to you mortgage company to see how they are using your payment? Or Burger King for that matter? *After you PAY what the court says you owe, It is not your business anymore.* Asking for that tells me you want extra control of a women you are not with. To be able to tell her how to spend her money and jump through extra hops to please you is what you are suggesting here.
> 
> My two cents



I appreciate your input. You do make some good points about the food purchasing and such but I must say, I totally disagree with you about the bolded statements above. I DO have the right to ensure that the CP is spending the money I give for C/S appropriately on the child/children. This is not "control" as you say, I think it is responsible parenting on the part of the NCP. A parent that DOES NOT make sure this happens in some form or another is not doing their job!
You have obviously not experienced or know someone who has experienced the pleasure of being the NCP of a child who's CP does not spend the money on the child and blows it all! It is not fun to see your child walking around in ratty clothes and shoes with holes as they walk hand-in-hand with the CP receiving calls on their $500 cell phone!

Just me two cents as well


----------



## SG_Player1974

LusbyMom said:


> Who says school lunch is a luxury?
> 
> Field trip? Yeah I am certain if I called the NCP and asked for half of field trip money he would cough it up
> 
> You want to separate food at the register? Seriously? So do I ring up the total and then divide it by the number of people in my family and ask the employee to put x amount of dollars on the debit card?
> 
> Sorry but electric is not spousal support.. What about my water bill? Should I let my kid not shower? Or do I get to divide that bill up also? Since the house phone is my responsibility then please make sure my ex doesn't call it.. since I pay for it.
> 
> When I clothes shop for my kid where should I do that? If I take her to Hollister is that a luxury? Or should I go to Wal-Mart? Or maybe the NCP will throw a fit because I didn't go to the thrift store.
> 
> I assure you my ex isn't living off of $500 a month.. and even if he was.. so what.. I do what it takes to make sure my kid has what is needed, so should he. I pay for all sport and all insurance and medical..



I say that buying school lunch is a luxury. If the child has a packed lunch made for them, they don't need to purchase lunch at school.

The electric, heat, etc. IS spousal support....unless you are going to cut a check to the NCP for the time the child/children are showering, reading, being warmed at THEIR residance! You need to think about it from BOTH sides and that is the problem. Too many CPs (Woman 90% of the time) have the "Screw him as long as I get MY money and the kids are taken care of.." mentality! IS THAT FAIR?

It is YOUR choice to take your children to Holister and "keep up with the fashion Jones'" Not mine.

And you do what is needed to make sure your kids have what is needed all right. As long as it is from Holister! 

I am fully willing to concede the fact that you try to do what is absolutely best for your kids. You must remember that MANY, MANY CPs out there do not! My debt card may not be the perfect solution for EVERYONE but, it is a step in the right direction to ensure that everything is on the level.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock.*



Jands said:


> Try being a self employed sole proprietor trying to be a decent person to my child's mother. I have to borrow money to pay a very high child support obligation in this failing economy. I went to court for a modification and was told since I am my own boss I "could" be lying about my income. There fore was denied my request to pay support based on what the economy has provided me. I was not even granted a waiver of any kind while I spent almost 3 months in bed with a combination of viral phenomena and possible swine flu. Instead they tried putting me in jail. As someone that follows all laws, pays taxes and even volunteers for the community I don't think the current system works. I had a decent income when I settled for the amount i agreed to. Work slowed down substantially and my income was reduced. How is that fair? I pay this woman more per month than she has ever made in her life. She has a business that she makes money with but is not considered in my support. Same self employed job but the courts believe she makes nothing, even when caught in a lie on the stand.
> 
> *I would love for someone to re-work the child support system. Although in my certain situation I am rational enough to realize, if it was fair to me, then other people would be taken advantage of. With how many child support payee's there are that are not in my situation I believe any changes to the system would hurt the chances for these children. As unfair as it seems, it is as fair as it ever could be.* The best thing you can do is stay on good terms with your ex, make your own arrangements, follow through with your deals and be civilized. With all the money it takes to hire attorneys you are putting their kids through college, why can't that be your kids going to college? The courts and attorneys should be a last resort. There is always mediation that you and the other parent can attend to resolve some issues.
> 
> My two cents



I hear stuff like posted above many times and it troubles me, because here he knows first-hand that the law is crooked but he will not give the same regard to the other separated parents.

He wants himself to be vindicated, but the law cheating and mistreating the other separated parents is okay in his regard.

The Child Support and Custody laws attacks every parent and it destroys families and it alienates children and it is NOT just one and only one case at a time.


----------



## Jands

VoteJP said:


> I hear stuff like posted above many times and it troubles me, because here he knows first-hand that the law is crooked but he will not give the same regard to the other separated parents.
> 
> He wants himself to be vindicated, but the law cheating and mistreating the other separated parents is okay in his regard.
> 
> The Child Support and Custody laws attacks every parent and it destroys families and it alienates children and it is NOT just one and only one case at a time.



That oddly enough is my point but I am afraid you missed it. I was very disheartened to learn how the child support system works as trying to be equal across the board without any special cases. I can guarantee my case is very rare. The rarity of my case should allow for some changes in circumstances. I was told I will NEVER have a material change in my income based on my special case. Mostly because I own my own business. Due to a judge that was following the law. As a business owner you are not the highest paid person in your company (contrary to popular belief) and your expenses are not taken into account. As such they have my income listed as my companies gross sales which is before I pay payroll, materials, insurances and licensees. which means I have to make several hundred thousand dollars for my support to increase. Also, they have my personal net listed as my lower number which is after all deductions (like mileage and office supplies) and the items listed above. So I would have to make about minimum wage to attempt to get a material change in my case. In which it will be ruled I am self impoverished. My child support is based on a number the courts decided on with no regard to the economy or my actual income based on my tax records. I have been through 3 judges (1 visiting judge) a master and mediation. Basically, to change the rules for my special case means everyone who wanted to pay less would use the same exceptions to have theirs reduced as well. So where I see a problem, I do not see a solution that would be fair to all. You are suggesting that the NCP should be able to pay less no matter how much they pay now. Maybe they don't deserve the amount of money we pay. Maybe they do. How do you intend to "FIX" this system without causing more harm? All I have seen is "needs to be changed/fixed".  Explain in detail all the pros and cons to your plan and you just might get another vote. No plan can possibly include all pros without any cons. Be thorough and no quotes.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Jands said:


> I have been through 3 judges (1 visiting judge) a master and mediation. Basically, to change the rules for my special case means everyone who wanted to pay less would use the same exceptions to have theirs reduced as well. So where I see a problem, I do not see a solution that would be fair to all. You are suggesting that the NCP should be able to pay less no matter how much they pay now. Maybe they don't deserve the amount of money we pay. Maybe they do.



It still gets to me that this is what so many people say and want, which is to fix their own personal case but no one else's case because the other parents are really guilty and deadbeats but not him self.

Save himself but screw the others.



Jands said:


> How do you intend to "FIX" this system without causing more harm? All I have seen is "needs to be changed/fixed".



No one would be harmed if the Child Support ended completely and immediately.

Just like the Custodial parents on this thread declare the Child Support is only used for extras and luxuries and on their own desires, so cutting off the stolen loot might hurt their extended egos and their vanities but no real harm would be done, and in fact it would be for their improvement.



Jands said:


> Explain in detail all the pros and cons to your plan and you just might get another vote. No plan can possibly include all pros without any cons. Be thorough and no quotes.



No.


----------



## smdavis65

Sadly enough, even though I have never missed a child support payment, I had to take my stepdaughter to the grocery store so my kids had some food in the house to eat. That money came out of my pocket in addition to what I pay for support.

Then, I went to child protective services to complain. They said as long as the kids were going to school, they couldn't do anything.

yeah, the system is hosed.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> No.



Did I read this right?  You just said "No."?  You won't spell out your plan in detail?


----------



## Jands

What a joke lmao. A few simple things in that post and he still does not see my point. Nowhere in my post do i say screw the other people. Let me break it down so it is understandable to those confused. 

I feel that others would ABUSE the system if it were made fair to the few people who are taken advantage of. 

I feel that others would ABUSE the system if it were made fair to the few people who are taken advantage of. 

I feel that others would ABUSE the system if it were made fair to the few people who are taken advantage of. 

understandable? Reading it a few times may help you out there.


----------



## Geruch

smdavis65 said:


> Sadly enough, even though I have never missed a child support payment, I had to take my stepdaughter to the grocery store so my kids had some food in the house to eat. That money came out of my pocket in addition to what I pay for support.
> 
> Then, I went to *child protective services* to complain. They said as long as the kids were going to school, *they couldn't do anything.*
> 
> yeah, the system is hosed.



There's  part of the problem. CPS isn't willing to do anything. 

If this is a real concern of your and it happens often. Here's a tip,

Next time instead of going in person and letting them know who you are. 
Just make a Anonymous phone call. When you call and report it they have to check it out.


----------



## Geruch

From what read, it seem that this Jands wants a fair and just child support system for all.
I think Child support should be base on "Take Home Pay" and not base on Gross. 

James,  When are you going to realize that, It was two adults that destroy their once happy family. 
Two adults that couldn't or wouldn't work things out, so they got a divorce.
Child support is usually thought of after separation has occured and not before.

It's always easy to blame the laws, then to look in the mirror and take part of blame yourself.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Jands said:


> What a joke lmao. A few simple things in that post and he still does not see my point. Nowhere in my post do i say screw the other people. Let me break it down so it is understandable to those confused.
> 
> I feel that others would ABUSE the system if it were made fair to the few people who are taken advantage of.
> 
> I feel that others would ABUSE the system if it were made fair to the few people who are taken advantage of.
> 
> I feel that others would ABUSE the system if it were made fair to the few people who are taken advantage of.
> 
> understandable? Reading it a few times may help you out there.



I did get your point, and I did understand it from the beginning.

What I then gave is my own judgment of your words, and by my judgment I declare your message and your point to be contemptible and disgusting. 

.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> From what read, it seem that this Jands wants a fair and just child support system for all.



No, he said he does not want it for other parents because the other parents might take advantages if they were to be given justice.

He wrote it three (3) times that other parents will abuse the law if fairness is given to any.

It is despicable.



Geruch said:


> Two adults that couldn't or wouldn't work things out, so they got a divorce.
> Child support is usually thought of after separation has occurred and not before.
> 
> It's always easy to blame the laws, then to look in the mirror and take part of blame yourself.



Well you make certain that you teach your children and grandchildren that garbage of not looking at it until after it occurs - and not before.

You better teach your kids some reality that each of them will face the law and their children will be stolen from at least one of their parents and that they will face the Child Support laws in due time and they had better take the custody from their other parent so the other parent will get trashed by the law as they hide behind the thieves.

If you fail to teach your children the reality of those ignorant laws then they will learn about it in harder ways.

.


----------



## SG_Player1974

VoteJP said:


> Just like the Custodial parents on this thread declare *the Child Support is only used for extras and luxuries and on their own desires,* so cutting off the stolen loot might hurt their extended egos and their vanities but no real harm would be done, and in fact it would be for their improvement.



JP... let me first say that I am not a supporter or denouncer of your opinions. I would like to say that not ALL custodial parents use child support monies for "luxuries" or friviously. Some do and that is a shame however, that is the point of my debt card idea. The people who mis-spend the money would be reprimanded and their spending would be "straightened out" by the courts and the people who spend it appropriately do not have anything to worry about.
Sure it may be a little more work on the part of the CP but in the grand scheme of things it is not really that much work!


----------



## Jands

My opinion on what you are talking about is clearer now. Maybe instead of a debit card the courts could send the CP in question to a teaching type course so they can learn how to spend the money appropriately. Only CP's in question would be subject to such a class. So the CP's can learn how to manage thier money and use better spending to care for thier child/children more responsibly. The difficult part will be determining which CP's really need such a class. They court order parenting classes, why not a finance class to help the CP's too? In the end it SHOULD be about the children. Not saying your idea is wrong, just tossing out something else to consider that can exclude the CP's that are doing right by thier kids ( like Lusbymom sounds like she does ).

As for JP hahaha. A Voter asks for 1 of your plans to be spelled out clearly so they can better understand it. Your response is "NO"? How do you plan on getting elected? Another post I read said you were only concerned with a few issues. You cant outline any plans or long and short term goals? You say you want change? Things need to be reformed? I guess people will vote for you because you seem to care? If people are dumb enough to elect you I suspect you would be saying the same things here when you run for your second term. The only thing we know about your plan is child support is bad. 

I am announcing me running for governor next election. Please don't ask me for my plans, but I will fix the ecomony, homelessness, sexual harrasment in the workplace, gasoline prices and the entire judical system. More importantly I want to take votes away from a candidate that will actually do something in office. 

I am Jands and I approve this message.


----------



## smdavis65

Jands said:


> My opinion on what you are talking about is clearer now. Maybe instead of a debit card the courts could send the CP in question to a teaching type course so they can learn how to spend the money appropriately. Only CP's in question would be subject to such a class. So the CP's can learn how to manage thier money and use better spending to care for thier child/children more responsibly. The difficult part will be determining which CP's really need such a class. They court order parenting classes, why not a finance class to help the CP's too? In the end it SHOULD be about the children. Not saying your idea is wrong, just tossing out something else to consider that can exclude the CP's that are doing right by thier kids ( like Lusbymom sounds like she does ).
> 
> As for JP hahaha. A Voter asks for 1 of your plans to be spelled out clearly so they can better understand it. Your response is "NO"? How do you plan on getting elected? Another post I read said you were only concerned with a few issues. You cant outline any plans or long and short term goals? You say you want change? Things need to be reformed? I guess people will vote for you because you seem to care? If people are dumb enough to elect you I suspect you would be saying the same things here when you run for your second term. The only thing we know about your plan is child support is bad.
> 
> I am announcing me running for governor next election. Please don't ask me for my plans, but I will fix the ecomony, homelessness, *sexual harrasment in the workplace*, gasoline prices and the entire judical system. More importantly I want to take votes away from a candidate that will actually do something in office.
> 
> I am Jands and I approve this message.



I am all for sexual harassment at work. You have my vote!


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



SG_Player1974 said:


> JP... let me first say that I am not a supporter or denouncer of your opinions. I would like to say that not ALL custodial parents use child support monies for "luxuries" or friviously. Some do and that is a shame however, that is the point of my debt card idea. The people who mis-spend the money would be reprimanded and their spending would be "straightened out" by the courts and the people who spend it appropriately do not have anything to worry about.
> Sure it may be a little more work on the part of the CP but in the grand scheme of things it is not really that much work!



I like the Debit Card idea.

As it would be better then what we have going on now.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> by my judgment I declare your message and your point to be contemptible and disgusting.


I am going to guess he will not vote for you now.      Too bad you are too stupid and arrogant to see that there are people who might support you in _reforming_ the system, but no sensible person will back the complete dissolution of the system that you seek.  This thread is providing some good discussion, at least, even if none of it is from its creator.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> If you fail to teach your children the reality of those ignorant laws then they will learn about it in harder ways.



The reality is, One has to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves. Can I really afford to raise a child/ren for 18 years. If money is tight now then, You have no business having child/ren. It cost a lot of money to raise a child/ren until their 18 years. Both parents should support their own child/ren. The child/ren are depending on both parents for what they need. For love, hugs, support, understanding, etc. None of it should stop just because you get divorce.
You can call the laws ignorant all you want. I . It takes two people willing to make their marriage work. If the marriage fails and they spilt up. The custodial parent is expected to support the child as well as the non-custodial / separated. When you have a child/ren, you do what most loving parents do. You support your child because you are the parent. 

I didn't get married, have children and get a divorce just so I could walk away from my children. Doesn't matter why my marriage failed, what does matter to me is that my children are well taken care of and happy. I'm not going to  run and hide. Just so I could get away with not finacially supporting my child/ren. Sorry but I wasn't raise that way.

Like I said before, Child support should be base on " take home pay " not " gross pay"
Not everyone get's all their federal and state tax money back that they paid in.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I like the Debit Card idea. As it would be better then what we have going on now.


Could you explain to else's, Why do you feel it would be better then what we have now?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> Could you explain to else's, Why do you feel it would be better then what we have now?



It does not mean that I am changing my platform as Governor as I intend to end the injustices of the Child Support and nothing less.

But the Debit Card would still be an improvement over the ignorant injustices going on now.

I believe the Debit Cards would severely demonstrate the the Child Support is a complete fraud, and that the Custodial parents are fraudulent too.

The Child Support is just stealing money that does not support any children and the cash is always mis-used.

The Debit Card would demonstrate the lies in vivid detail and I agree with exposing the fraud.

Consider that some Child Support orders are high like 250k$ or millions of dollars and it is not to support the children as it is to pamper the custodial.

And the poorest of poor families on welfare that might actually "need" the Child Support are not given the money as the State treasury keeps the stolen loot.

So when the poorest of poor parents do not "NEED" the Child Support, then the richer custodial parents damn sure do not "need" it either.

The Debit Card would expose the lies and I am all for that.


----------



## Dimwit Child

*You AND your runningmate*

Are both posers, perverts, liars and scam artists.  Good luck!


----------



## Highlander

Dimwit Child said:


> Are both posers, perverts, liars and scam artists.  Good luck!



Wow, you guys have kept Mr. cuSICK very busy with this topic.  Over a 1000 posts.  Do you really think he is going to wake up one day and and all his brain damage is going to be repaired?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



beauty said:


> lusby mom you are a liar.  You talk so much on here.  You are a joke.  I usually dont respond to your lies and I wont again but you are crazy.  You with hold your child from her dad.  You dont let him speak to her on the phone.  He has showed up...you arent there. He calls for hours and you dont answer.  Fathers day you had her hide behind a couch and pretend you werent home.  Dont cry poor mouth because you get your money if you didnt he would be in jail.  He has tried to show up you lie.  Halloween party at her school we were headed there and you called and said the child didnt go.. come to find out she did so it looked like he didnt show up.  You are manipulative.  Wednesday you call and say the child doesnt want to go but he never gets to speak to her.  His weekends you say she has tournaments and wont let her go.... its not your place.  He can take the child but you are control freak.  Lie on here all you want we know the truth and its easy to hide behind words! I hope writing lies helps you sleep better at night when you are the one hurting your child.



There is a movie called "What a girl wants", link to it HERE, and in that movie the Mom steals the daughter from the Dad and when the girl (Daphne / Amanda Bynes) keeps asking her Mom about her Dad and Mom gives her daughter a load of bull that some how the Dad is just DNA and Mom says the DNA does not matter, so the girl has to sneak out and away from her Mom to find her long lost Dad.

When she finds her Dad then he is stunned to learn that the Mom had a child and did not tell him about it, and in essence the Mom had stolen his daughter and the daughter was raised under a kidnapper that lied to the girl her entire life.

The Dad had plenty of money so Mom could have demanded Child Support but then in that way she could not have stolen the child from the Dad, and the money is not the real point as stealing the child is the point.

That movie dramatizes this realistic and unwholesome message very well indeed.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Taeobi said:


> You missed the point. I was saying a child can feel abandoned without anyone putting that in their heads... ex: separation anxiety in an 8 month old.



There is another point that the children will always feel abandoned and degraded when the custodial insults and criticizes the child's separated parent.

It might happen sometimes without someone putting it into their head, but it happens every time the custodial teaches it to the children.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> There is another point that the children will always feel abandoned and degraded when the custodial insults and criticizes the child's separated parent.
> 
> It might happen sometimes without someone putting it into their head, but it happens every time the custodial teaches it to the children.



Of course the child doesn't feel that way because the NCP actually did abandon them


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Consider that some Child Support orders are high like 250k$ or millions of dollars
> and it is not to support the children as it is to pamper the custodial.


 Wow, Oh Really, Wow, In the State of Maryland, It can't be, say it isn't so.

Are you talking about child support payments for a year or what? When you say millions you must be talking about Hollywood California. Most likely it's only about 2 % to 5% of parents that pay that much out of all the parents that pay child support.  



VoteJP said:


> It does not mean that I am changing my platform as Governor as I intend to end the injustices of the Child Support and nothing less.
> 
> But the Debit Card would still be an improvement over the ignorant injustices going on now. I believe the Debit Cards would severely demonstrate the the Child Support is a complete fraud, and that the Custodial parents are fraudulent too. The Child Support is just stealing money that does not support any children and the cash is always mis-used. The Debit Card would demonstrate the lies in vivid detail and I agree with exposing the fraud.
> 
> And the poorest of poor families on welfare that might actually "need" the Child Support are not given the money as the State treasury keeps the stolen loot. So when the poorest of poor parents do not "NEED" the Child Support, then the richer custodial parents damn sure do not "need" it either. The Debit Card would expose the lies and I am all for that.



I only ask you why you feel a debit card would be better. 
Preacher boy, you been preaching the "sos" for how many years now?
The thought never cross my mine, that you may change your platform.

When both parents are working and one parent receiving child support. The check in the mail or deposited into their checking account. Do you have any hard proof that child support doesn't go towards supporting the child/ren? Or are you assuming that the child support is being spent on everything else but the child/ren?

Now with the poor poor, When someone apply's for a welfare check, You better believe it's a single mother with young children most likely under the age of 5. Their not working and their not receiving child support. Their asking the Government for help to support their family by applying for a welfare check. Welfare is suppose to be a HAND UP, until your able to get back on your feet and able to go to work. It's not a HAND OUT. One should be striving to make their children life better as well as their own. 

I know, You don't think the Government should get some of that welfare money back? You think it should be free money. You do realize that the Government expects the other parent to support their own child/ren. Any parent that works for a living and support their own children will agree. But that's only happens if they can locate the other parent. Can't locate the separate parent then the Government never gets a dime. But that's ok, Government keeps mailing out them checks.

Love to know what's the percentage of separate parents, that's actually paying child support for their children. That are being fully supported by the Government. As long as the child support payment is less then a welfare check. The parent will still receive a welfare check right on time. If the child support is more then the welfare check. Then they get the child support. 

Where do you think all this money comes from for all these Government Programs?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> Of course the child doesn't feel that way because the NCP actually did abandon them



The word "abandon" is mis-used as a legal term because the law slanders parents and there are no children that are truly "abandoned" when one parent leaves their child(ren) with the other parent.

There are plenty of resources for any custodial with child and the children are supplied with everything that they need to overflowing, so it might be legal but otherwise calling it as "abandoned" is NOT a true account.

And even if the custodial and every other person concerned does see it as an "abandonment" then to tell that to the child(ren) is still an abuse of the child and it would be an improper act of custody too.

Having "custody" must include trying to raise the child(ren) as healthy as possible, so teaching a child some evil and hateful claims about the child's separated parent is abusive and harmful to the child.

It truly is not the place of the custodial to speak for the other parent or to answer question for the other parent to their child.

This is the same form of abuse that the State and Federal laws have done in broadcasting the lying slanders of calling parents as "deadbeats" because it teaches the children to hate (or dislike) their separated parent.

Many American children are brain-washed to hate and to degrade their own parents through the Govt lies and slanders against their parents.

It might feel right to blame and then to punish the accused parents, but that does not improve the situation and it harms our society.


----------



## Dimwit Child

*truth is.......*

you left your baby and your babies mommas.  you dont want to raise children and you dont want to share in the cost of that child.  frankly, you shouldnt be the paternal unit of anything.  you're unfit.  

find another platform.  you've beaten this one to death


----------



## Geruch

Abandoned child syndrome is a behavioral or psychological condition that results from the loss of one or both parents. Abandonment may be physical (the parent is not present in the child's life) or emotional (the parent withholds affection, nurturing, or stimulation). 

Parents leave their children for many reasons, including trouble with the law, financial insecurity, the child's mental or physical challenges, and sometimes population control policies. Involuntary loss of a parent, such as through divorce or death, can also create abandonment issues. Parents who leave their children, whether with or without good reason, can cause reversible (with proper help) psychological damage to the child.

Symptoms may be physical and/or mental, and may extend into adulthood and perhaps throughout a person's life.

Alienation from the environment - withdrawal from social activities, resistance towards others.

Guilt - the child believes that he/she did something wrong that caused the abandonment (often associated with depression)

Fear and uncertainty - clinginess, insecurities

Sleep and eating disorders - malnutrition, starvation, disturbed sleep, nightmares

Physical ailments - fatigue, depression, lack of energy and creativity, anger, grief


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> Abandoned child syndrome is a behavioral or psychological condition that results from the loss of one or both parents. Abandonment may be physical (the parent is not present in the child's life) or emotional (the parent withholds affection, nurturing, or stimulation).
> 
> Parents leave their children for many reasons, including trouble with the law, financial insecurity, the child's mental or physical challenges, and sometimes population control policies. Involuntary loss of a parent, such as through divorce or death, can also create abandonment issues. Parents who leave their children, whether with or without good reason, can cause reversible (with proper help) psychological damage to the child.
> 
> Symptoms may be physical and/or mental, and may extend into adulthood and perhaps throughout a person's life.
> 
> Alienation from the environment - withdrawal from social activities, resistance towards others.
> 
> Guilt - the child believes that he/she did something wrong that caused the abandonment (often associated with depression)
> 
> Fear and uncertainty - clinginess, insecurities
> 
> Sleep and eating disorders - malnutrition, starvation, disturbed sleep, nightmares
> 
> Physical ailments - fatigue, depression, lack of energy and creativity, anger, grief



All that is true, and it is the duty of "custody" to make certain that does not happen in the children.

They are not to be teaching the children hateful and critical messages about their separated parent, and if a child does have any such negative feelings then the custodial needs to sooth them over and not hammer it into the child.

Having "custody" means providing what the child needs, and all children need a healthy relationship and a healthy perception of both of their real natural parents.

And the State and Federal laws that have broad-casted their hateful slander against the separated parents needs to be stopped too.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> ...if a child does have any such negative feelings then the custodial needs to sooth them over and not hammer it into the child.


The parent actually providing for the child has no obligation to lie, though.  Telling the truth is what is in order, not lying.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> The parent actually providing for the child has no obligation to lie, though.  Telling the truth is what is in order, not lying.



I honestly do not believe that you know what "truth" means.

As in there is nothing truthful about teaching negative and hateful stuff to a child about their other parent.

You might see teaching or raising a child to dislike their other parent as some form of honesty or truth but it is not.  

A child is to be raised to "honor thy father and thy mother" and if the child does not then it is a dysfunction of the custody.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I honestly do not believe that you know what "truth" means.
> 
> As in there is nothing truthful about teaching negative and hateful stuff to a child about their other parent.
> 
> You might see teaching or raising a child to dislike their other parent as some form of honesty or truth but it is not.
> 
> A child is to be raised to "honor thy father and thy mother" and if the child does not then it is a dysfunction of the custody.


I do understand what truth means.

For example, if a father leaves his child, and when it comes to paying for food, clothing, shelter, school supplies, medical care, etc., the child's father says the child is to "figure it out for himself" - well, that is the child's father's honest, truthful reaction.  The child should be allowed to know that, with no fanfare.

Then the child can figure out for himself how much honor the father deserves.

When the child's father isn't there for ball games, to talk about those funny feelings he's feeling as he grows up, to help him with his math homework, etc., because the father would rather be in another state ignoring his own son -well, the child should be allowed to know that truth, with no fanfare.

Then the child can figure out for himself how much honor the father deserves.





I say the son should do unto others as they have done unto him.  And, look, the child learned from the father what the father did to him.


----------



## maxima87

SG_Player1974 said:


> JP... let me first say that I am not a supporter or denouncer of your opinions. I would like to say that not ALL custodial parents use child support monies for "luxuries" or friviously. Some do and that is a shame however, that is the point of my debt card idea. The people who mis-spend the money would be reprimanded and their spending would be "straightened out" by the courts and the people who spend it appropriately do not have anything to worry about.
> Sure it may be a little more work on the part of the CP but in the grand scheme of things it is not really that much work!




So, just to be clear...what you are suggesting is to:

a.) Seperate all childrens items from mine
b.) Calculate the NCP percentage based upon court order (Me 70% / Him 30%)
c.) Pay 30% of the purchase on the debit card
d.) Pay 70% out of seperate account
e.) Continue ringing up purchases and checkout
f.) Repeat for everything and anything involving child.

Is this accurate to what you are suggesting?


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> All that is true, and it is the duty of "custody" to make certain that does not happen in the children.
> 
> They are not to be teaching the children hateful and critical messages about their separated parent, and if a child does have any such negative feelings then the custodial needs to sooth them over and not hammer it into the child.
> 
> Having "custody" means providing what the child needs, and all children need a healthy relationship and a healthy perception of both of their real natural parents. And the State and Federal laws that have broad-casted their hateful slander against the separated parents needs to be stopped too.


As you can see, it's the children that suffer emotional problems when they feel one of their parent abandon them.  Children know nothing about the laws. All they know is that either dad or mom isn't in their life. The custodial parent can't fix all the emotional problem a child may have. 

Children are bright, Depending on their age, they will figure out what's going on. Whether the other parent tells them or not. Believe me, they don't always learn the truth about their absent parent from the custodial parent. Family and friends they talk. So if you don't want your child knowing the truth, then you better tell the family and friends to keep their mouth shut.

All any custodial parent can do is try to make the children life as normal as possible. If and when they do have questions, we can answer them the best we can. Can't always shelter a children from the truth. You call it slander, when it's actually the truth is being told. I have yet to read a solution that all can live with.

I found out the truth about my parents and the truth wasn't told by them. Know this, The truth always come out sooner or later. Whether we want it to or not. No one can hide from the truth. Tell enough lies, the truth will come back and bite you.

Your talk about custodial parent should provide all, I don't agree with it. 
I agree with both parents should provide, 50/50


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> As you can see, it's the children that suffer emotional problems when they feel one of their parent abandon them.  Children know nothing about the laws. All they know is that either dad or mom isn't in their life. The custodial parent can't fix all the emotional problem a child may have.



Yes, the custodial can fix it.

The custodial can-not do it when they hold a grudge and trash-talk the separated parent, but that is a failure of providing healthy custody, and it is abusive and harmful to the children. 

The children are to be taught to honor both their mother and their father and anything less is a dysfunction.



Geruch said:


> Children are bright, Depending on their age, they will figure out what's going on. Whether the other parent tells them or not. Believe me, they don't always learn the truth about their absent parent from the custodial parent. Family and friends they talk. So if you don't want your child knowing the truth, then you better tell the family and friends to keep their mouth shut.



It is a sad reality that family and friends do abuse the children too, and an informed custodial parent can stop that or smooth it over with some effort.

But an even bigger enemy is that our State and Federal govts as in the News coverage do slander and insults the separated parents in the public arena and it hurts children and hurts parents and hurts families, hurts society and undermines every betterment that is needed.

If we want to start doing things right then we all need to make some big improvements. 



Geruch said:


> All any custodial parent can do is try to make the children life as normal as possible. If and when they do have questions, we can answer them the best we can. Can't always shelter a children from the truth. You call it slander, when it's actually the truth is being told. I have yet to read a solution that all can live with.



Trash-talking the separated parent is never an expression of truth, and it is a dirty hateful thing to do, and it hurts the children accordingly.



Geruch said:


> I found out the truth about my parents and the truth wasn't told by them. Know this, The truth always come out sooner or later. Whether we want it to or not. No one can hide from the truth. Tell enough lies, the truth will come back and bite you.



Not wanting details, but if that so-called "truth" was a negative critique of your parents then that means you were psychologically violated by those so-called "truth" tellers, and now as an adult you need to correct that if you want to be psychologically healthy in that regard.



Geruch said:


> Your talk about custodial parent should provide all, I don't agree with it.
> I agree with both parents should provide, 50/50



That is what marriage is all about 50/50.

But when one takes "custody" which legally and factually steals the child from the other parent, then it is thy self which has taken on 100% and have stolen the 50% from the other parent.


----------



## hvp05

This_person said:


> Then the child can figure out for himself how much honor the father deserves.


The vast majority of people on earth can do this without thinking; people instinctively feel hurt and can be disturbed after being deserted.  Most deadbeats know this as well, but they act the way they do because they're selfish.  Only a sociopath can say with a straight face that deserting a child is okay and they will not be harmed.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> But an even bigger enemy is that our State and Federal govts as in the News coverage do slander and insults the separated parents in the public arena and it hurts children and hurts parents and hurts families, hurts society and undermines every betterment that is needed.



There needs to be a qualification to your statement.  "Separated parents" that pay the child support are not slandered or insulted.  It is the ones who, like you, did not pay the child support.  As usual, your blanket generalization is off the mark.  And obviously both parents are "separated parents".  There are two players in the equation.  They are individually either a custodial parent, or a non-custodial parent.  If the ncp doesn't pay the child support, then that ncp is (to put it factually) a scofflaw.  My point is that your statement, taken word for word, is false.


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> Trash-talking the separated parent is never an expression of truth, and it is a dirty hateful thing to do, and it hurts the children accordingly.




I like it when you say things I agree with, like the above. (Well... most of it. Sometimes it *is *the truth - but the children don't need to hear it)





You should do that more often.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



thunderclapp said:


> There needs to be a qualification to your statement.  "Separated parents" that pay the child support are not slandered or insulted.  It is the ones who, like you, did not pay the child support.  As usual, your blanket generalization is off the mark.  And obviously both parents are "separated parents".  There are two players in the equation.  They are individually either a custodial parent, or a non-custodial parent.  If the ncp doesn't pay the child support, then that ncp is (to put it factually) a scofflaw.  My point is that your statement, taken word for word, is false.



Separated parent means separated from their child.

If a couple are or were married they might be separated spouses, or a separated couple.

Separated parent has nothing to do with the other parent but only separated from their children.

If the custodial parent was to die then the child goes over to their other parent then that separated parent would not be separated anymore.

I really like that this emphasizes that children are separated from one of their parents and that is the big dysfunction that harms the children and harms the family and society.

And I do not separate the parents that pay the thieving Child Support from those that do not pay that extortion money because the law as does our society degrades and insult the separated parents even when they do pay the Child Support extortion money.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> But an even bigger enemy is that our State and Federal govts as in the News coverage do slander and insults the separated parents in the public arena and it hurts children and hurts parents and hurts families, hurts society and undermines every betterment that is needed. If we want to start doing things right then we all need to make some big improvements.


If what you say is true as you see it, I'll ask

*What Exactly Is Your Solutions? * :shrug:



VoteJP said:


> Not wanting details, but if that so-called "truth" was a negative critique of your parents then that means you were psychologically violated by those so-called "truth" tellers, and now as an adult you need to correct that if you want to be psychologically healthy in that regard.


NOPE, the truth wasn't negative, it was just something in my parents pass. I'm just saying when parents keep secrets for whatever reason. The truth does comes out sooner or later. That's all I'm saying. We can only protect the children from the truth for so long.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Toxick said:


> Sometimes it *is *the truth - but the children don't need to hear it)



Just because the custodial believes it and speaks it honestly then that does not make it as the truth.

The children have a separate relationship with each of their parents, so Mommy can not speak for Dad just as Dad must not speak for Mom.

So the only "truth" between Dad and child is between them two, and for Mom and child it is what each says to each other, and that is the healthy boundary.

Mom's truth can be and often is different than Dad's truth and the children need to be raised without violating that difference if they are to be psychologically healthy as adults. 

If the custodial Dad (or Mom) claim to their child that the Mom (or Dad) abandoned the child, but the accused parent denies that with a different explanation, and the child then believes the slander from the custodial then that is a psychological violation of the child as violating their relationship boundary.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> If what you say is true as you see it, I'll ask
> 
> *What Exactly Is Your Solutions? * :shrug:



There is absolutely no need for the Child Support and Custody laws and we need to put a stop to those ignorant family breakup laws.

Marriage needs to go back to the control of religions, and parenting needs to be the job of the two parents and not of the law.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Just because the custodial believes it and speaks it honestly then that does not make it as the truth.


Just because *YOU* believe it and speak it honestly then that does not make it as the truth.  You frequently include your little disclaimer that you are telling things as you rightly see them, which may be, but you're warped beyond belief so whatever you say is automatically suspect.




VoteJP said:


> parenting needs to be the job of the two parents and *not of the law*.


Unless that law is addressing welfare and other state benefits... then yeah, keep that money rolling in without questions or conditions.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> There is absolutely no need for the Child Support and Custody laws and we need to put a stop to those ignorant family breakup laws.
> 
> Marriage needs to go back to the control of religions, and parenting needs to be the job of the two parents and not of the law.


You said, exactly what I thought your would. Your merely  stating your opinion,  I'll ask,  
*How do you expect to get from point A to point B?*:shrug:

Each parent has the right to parent, if they so desire to be in their child's life. Of course parenting isn't going to be the same as when, the married couple or non-married were living together. Nothing ever quite the same after two adults split up. 
*Family breakup laws? wth, What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Divorce Laws? * 

No need for Child Support so long as there's welfare programs, family, friends and churches. That are willing to help because the other parent doesn't feel they should. Is that what you think?
*What exactly is wrong with the Custody Laws?* :shrug:

All I get out of what you say is, How can parents get out of paying child support. 
How both parents shouldn't be equally responsible for providing for their own children.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock.*



hvp05 said:


> Just because *YOU* believe it and speak it honestly then that does not make it as the truth.  You frequently include your little disclaimer that you are telling things as you rightly see them, which may be, but you're warped beyond belief so whatever you say is automatically suspect.



I welcome my words to be suspect and scrutinized, and I am quite well willing to explain my words and to be challenged by anyone.

The truth does not frighten me as I welcome it - so long as it be true.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock.*



Geruch said:


> You said, exactly what I thought your would. Your merely  stating your opinion,  I'll ask,
> *How do you expect to get from point A to point B?*:shrug:



That is the point of running for Governor, as then I will have the power and position to make it happen.



Geruch said:


> Each parent has the right to parent, if they so desire to be in their child's life. Of course parenting isn't going to be the same as when, the married couple or non-married were living together. Nothing ever quite the same after two adults split up.
> *Family breakup laws? wth, What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Divorce Laws? *



A couple splitting up is normal in human relationships, but now we have laws which empower and thus encourage the break up in far more extreme and destructive ways.

A Mom and Dad can break up and get back together later in a month or year but when the law intrudes then the law makes the split complete and makes the split nasty and unnecessarily hostile.

The point and purpose of Govt and laws is to protect ant to serve society, and that means they need to butt-out of personal and family disputes and let the people take care of their own business.

What has been created is a social mess that keeps getting worse and it is not hard to figure out that the laws are detrimental extreme.



Geruch said:


> *What exactly is wrong with the Custody Laws?* :shrug:



Custody laws legally divide parents and excludes one parent, and even in shared custody it is an absurdity for the law to declare a Mom or Dad to have certain rights to their own God given children.

Custody means legally stealing the children from their parents, as like kidnapping, and then demanding ransom payments.

Outside of proven child abuse, then there is no reason for any law to dictate the rule of either parent over their own child.

As in when the law says a Mom gets custody then that shuts out the father and that legally and factually breaks up the family unit beyond repair.



Geruch said:


> All I get out of what you say is, How can parents get out of paying child support.
> How both parents shouldn't be equally responsible for providing for their own children.



That is not quite correct, because I honestly say that a parent with a child can get far more and far better from the other parent just by doing things through their own natural instincts and without any Courts or laws.

The two parents would work out everything themselves if the ignorant Courts and laws did not get in the way.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> All that is true, and it is the duty of "custody" to make certain that does not happen in the children.
> 
> They are not to be teaching the children hateful and critical messages about their separated parent, and if a child does have any such negative feelings then the custodial needs to sooth them over and not hammer it into the child.
> 
> Having "custody" means providing what the child needs, and all children need a healthy relationship and a healthy perception of both of their real natural parents.
> 
> And the State and Federal laws that have broad-casted their hateful slander against the separated parents needs to be stopped too.



A CP can lie to a child and tell them that the NCP is really a good person.. but you know what... eventually the kid realizes the truth and sees the NCP for what they really are. Kids aren't stupid and the older they get the more they see and the more they realize. At some point you can't sugar coat it anymore.  They feel the hurt and don't buy the excuses anymore.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The truth does not frighten me as I welcome it - so long as it be true.


THAT is untrue.   

You like to say (or have someone say to you), "I challenge that," and then walk away without providing any evidence or other information.




VoteJP said:


> The two parents would work out everything themselves if the ignorant Courts and laws did not get in the way.


I think they've tried that... which is why we have laws.

I'm curious:  when you deserted your family, was that a mutual decision between you and your ex or was that a Jimmy original?


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> Just because the custodial believes it and speaks it honestly then that does not make it as the truth.



This is why I used the word "sometimes".


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> A CP can lie to a child and tell them that the NCP is really a good person.. but you know what... eventually the kid realizes the truth and sees the NCP for what they really are. Kids aren't stupid and the older they get the more they see and the more they realize. At some point you can't sugar coat it anymore.  They feel the hurt and don't buy the excuses anymore.



 I still maintain that a caring and decent custodial parent could still keep the child in a proper perspective, but that is asking a lot of the custodial.

The bigger problem in this regard is that having "custody" in the first place means that the State law has already legally excluded the separated parent, and it is the law which gives the degrading slander its false merit that the custodial parents mis-use to justify themselves and to brainwash the children. 

If the children were not stolen (custody) in the first place then the later slander lies would have less impact on the family.

If we want children raised with both parents or at least the healthy influence of both parents then we have to stop attacking and degrading either parent.

For a custodial Mom to care nothing about the non custodial Dad is understandable, but to enforce State laws that empower that dysfunction is to destroy our own society.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



			
				VoteJP said:
			
		

> Just because the custodial believes it and speaks it honestly then that does not make it as the truth.





Toxick said:


> This is why I used the word "sometimes".



Yes, but mine does make sense and it does add up.

As like people get on this forum and speak for me saying and claiming that I hate children and I hate Women and on and on and they believe their own slanders but it is not true and not the truth even if themselves are being honest.

The point and reason is that they do not speak for me, just as one parent does not speak for the other parent.

It is a violation of the other person to claim you speak for them.

And just as voters need to find out the truth for themselves from the particular candidates, so do the children need to learn the "truth" from each of their own parents and not from anyone else.

To preach one's own opinion and beliefs as being the truth for another person is NOT the truth.


----------



## Geruch

LusbyMom said:


> A CP can lie to a child and tell them that the NCP is really a good person.. but you know what... eventually the kid realizes the truth and sees the NCP for what they really are. Kids aren't stupid and the older they get the more they see and the more they realize. At some point you can't sugar coat it anymore.  They feel the hurt and don't buy the excuses anymore.



That's the point I was trying to make. You did it very well. thank you


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock.*



LusbyMom said:


> A CP can lie to a child and tell them that the NCP is really a good person.. but you know what... eventually the kid realizes the truth and sees the NCP for what they really are. Kids aren't stupid and the older they get the more they see and the more they realize. At some point you can't sugar coat it anymore.  They feel the hurt and don't buy the excuses anymore.



I do not believe the custodial has any right to make any judgments about the separated parent being "good or bad" or whatever as it is not the custodial's place to speak for the other parent, nor to be critical of the other parent.

If the child wants to know about the Dad then the Mom needs to tell the child to find out from the Dad, and the Dad must tell the child to ask the Mom for info about the Mom and neither Mom nor Dad are to speak for the other parent.

If the child talks negative about either of their parents then that is the time to correct the child - if one wants them to grow up with a healthy mentality.

I certainly do not approve of telling lies at any time to child nor to adults.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I do not believe the custodial has any right to make any judgments about the separated parent being "good or bad" or whatever as it is not the custodial's place to speak for the other parent, nor to be critical of the other parent.
> 
> If the child wants to know about the Dad then the Mom needs to tell the child to find out from the Dad, and the Dad must tell the child to ask the Mom for info about the Mom and neither Mom nor Dad are to speak for the other parent.
> 
> If the child talks negative about either of their parents then that is the time to correct the child - if one wants them to grow up with a healthy mentality.
> 
> I certainly do not approve of telling lies at any time to child nor to adults.



You contradict yourself again. 

What do you suggest the mom should do when the dad has abandoned them? She can't tell them to ask the dad..  

A CP can't control what a child feels all on their own.


----------



## hvp05

VoteAgainstJP said:


> having "custody" in the first place means that the State law has already legally excluded the separated parent


You want to do the same thing, although in a different way.  By defining "custody" as providing *everything* for the child, telling non-custodials to give nothing and supporting the will of some to run away, you are reinforcing the idea that the non-custodial is neither needed nor wanted.




VoteAgainstJP said:


> As like people get on this forum and speak for me saying and claiming that I hate children and I hate Women


I don't recall ever saying that.  Not saying you _don't_ hate women and children - because some of your statements are persuasive to that idea - but I would not definitely say you do.

Rather, I think you are so stuck in your delusional beliefs that you are willing to say whatever will "prove" a given point at a given time, even if it's contradictory to another point made a few minutes later and even if it harms you in the process.  Mentally unstable people are like that.




VoteAgainstJP said:


> If the child wants to know about the Dad then the Mom needs to tell the child to find out from the Dad


Children need not be taught how to feel abandoned; instincts can do that alone.  If a parent actually is a deadbeat, the child will feel that in due time and no amount of sweet-talking or direct lying will cover it up.


You never did answer this question...





VoteAgainstJP said:


> The two parents would work out everything themselves if the ignorant Courts and laws did not get in the way.


I'm curious:  when you deserted your family, was that a mutual decision between you and your ex or was that a Jimmy original?


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



LusbyMom said:


> You contradict yourself again.



I do not see any contradiction, but I do not deny that there might be two different sides to most things and maybe many different sides and such, so that does not make a thing into a contradiction when there are two sides to the same equation.

There is no contradiction with my intention to end the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.



LusbyMom said:


> What do you suggest the mom should do when the dad has abandoned them? She can't tell them to ask the dad..



That "abandoned" is just legal terminology that slanders the separated parents, so teaching that to the children is abusive.

Especially calling it as "abandoned" when the custodial and the child do have everything they need in excess - so then it is never a true accounting.

And if the Dad is not there to speak for himself then the child must wait for the answers because no one else speaks for the parent to their child.

That a child might have to wait a lifetime is better than having the custodial violating the child with improper stories.



LusbyMom said:


> A CP can't control what a child feels all on their own.



It can be done if the custodial parent is competent, but many are not.

This also drives home the point that the system we have now is dysfunctional and broken being based on lies and immoralities.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I do not see any contradiction


Because you are committed to your delusions to the death, as I indicated yesterday.



> That "abandoned" is just legal terminology


Okay, then, fill in "deserted".



> the child do have everything they need in excess - so then it is never a true accounting.


Everything except a dad.  I can think of one true case right now.



> the child must wait for the answers


Again proving that you have NO idea what raising, or even interacting with, a child is like.  Perhaps if you had at least remained in contact with Jimmy Jr. while you were partying a couple thousand miles away you would not be so clueless today.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Yes, but mine does make sense and it does add up.
> 
> As like people get on this forum and speak for me saying and claiming that I hate children and I hate Women and on and on and they believe their own slanders but it is not true and not the truth even if themselves are being honest. The point and reason is that *they do not speak for me*, just as one parent does not speak for the other parent.
> 
> To preach one's own opinion and beliefs as being the truth for another person is NOT the truth.



Your Right, no one needs to speak for you. Your own words are very clear on how you feel.
That's the Truth 



> by VoteJP / J.P. Cusick - "The reality is that *most if not all Women do not know how to raise a child.*
> In human beings it is the father that raises the children and that is why
> *children with the Mom usually grows up dysfunctional or lacking in maturity*.
> 
> And a step-father does not fill the role of the real biological father because the biological counts immensely.
> 
> The Mom is still important and mothers do have a role in the children's upbringing,
> but the Mom and no one else can not substitute for the real Dad.
> 
> Women do not have the fathering instincts in them, just as Men do not have the mothering instincts."
> 
> Baltimore Sun talk forum - JP Cusick, his very own words





> by VoteJP / J.P. Cusick -  *" It does not matter if the loot is spent on the children or not*, because the Child Support is ill-gotten thievery where the *custodial parents have no moral nor ethical right to one penny of it."*
> 
> Baltimore Sun talk forum - James P Cusick Sr., his very own words.



I like to know what it takes to  be a Real Dad


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> Okay, then, fill in "deserted".



A synonym that means the exact same thing does NOT change the equation nor the point.

One can not truly be "deserted" when they have abundant housing, foods, clothing, medical, and everything they need in excess because that is not quite what being "deserted" means.

It is just more exaggerated nonsense that shows the Child Support and Custody laws are based on untruths and lies.



hvp05 said:


> Everything except a dad.



That I agree with - that the thing which is missing and which is the dysfunctional part is the the separated parents (mostly Dads) are the part that is truly missing.

Not their money as the thieves claim, it is that the Child Support and Custody laws divide the family and excludes one parent which is most often the Dad from the family and then slanders the separated parents for the damage done by those ignorant family breakup laws.

We need to promote agendas that bring the family together and not steal their money and force parents away from their own children.


----------



## Geruch

*J.P. for MD Governor - In His Own Words*

Abandon is Abandon & Abandonment is Abandonment. I don't care how you try to twist the meaning, you can mix it, shake it or bake it. Anyone will common sense knows exactly what the word truely mean, Expect for you, of course. 

When you have a parent that walks out of their child's life. One that doesn't seem or have anything to do with the child. That child will feel abandon by that parent. That child has ever right to feel the way they do. 

Did you get enough love as a child? You sure do come across a bit cold hearted. 

Look what I found. I heard if you dig long enough, your bound to fine treasures.
J.P. for MD Governor - In His Own Words


----------



## LusbyMom

Geruch said:


> Abandon is Abandon & Abandonment is Abandonment. I don't care how you try to twist the meaning, you can mix it, shake it or bake it. Anyone will common sense knows exactly what the word truely mean, Expect for you, of course.
> 
> When you have a parent that walks out of their child's life. One that doesn't seem or have anything to do with the child. That child will feel abandon by that parent. That child has ever right to feel the way they do.
> 
> Did you get enough love as a child? You sure do come across a bit cold hearted.
> 
> Look what I found. I heard if you dig long enough, your bound to fine treasures.
> J.P. for MD Governor - In His Own Words



 Great find!


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



Geruch said:


> When you have a parent that walks out of their child's life.



We have that happen every time there is a separation or divorce, and then it is more complicated by the Custody law that legally alienates the children from their separated parent, and the Custody law removes the parental rights from the separated parents, so any separation or divorce is an act of abandonment or indeed of one parent being excluded.

Putting that slanderous terminology on the situation is just to sooth the guilt of the thieves.


----------



## Geruch

*JP Cusick views on Osama bin Laden*



LusbyMom said:


> Great find!


Thanks

You may want to look at this also on the
Baltimore Sun talk forum - JP for Governor of MD his views on Osama bin Laden


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



VoteJP said:


> We have that happen every time there is a separation or divorce, and then it is more complicated by the Custody law that legally alienates the children from their separated parent, and the Custody law removes the parental rights from the separated parents, so any separation or divorce is an act of abandonment or indeed of one parent being excluded.
> 
> Putting that slanderous terminology on the situation is just to sooth the guilt of the thieves.



The sad reality is that the Child Support laws come from old English law called "Blackstone Commentaries" (year 1769) as told in the Maryland high Court of Appeals' case, and it is linked HERE (Thrower vs Support Enforcement, 3/8/2000) and scroll down to page 14 directly under the title of "DISCUSSION".

I went and read the "Blackstone Commentaries" which is available through our Public Library system, as online HERE, and Blackstone bases his beliefs on his religious claims, and Blackstone was referring to the rich and wealthy population, and at that time people owned people as slaves and women had few legal options and in particular at that time (1769) Blackstone and English law had "Debtor's Prisons" to enforce the Blackstone laws.

So the Child Support is not based on any need nor any real condition but based on the old laws of "Debtors' prisons" and of owning people and rich wives and it is NOT based on any need of the children and no regard for protecting or promoting families or the betterment of society.

Therefore I am not the one trying to go backward as I am the one saying to give up the backward ways.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I like to quote myself instead of attempting to answer questions.  It makes me feel important even though no one else will read it.


That is accurate and true, without a doubt.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> *... instead of attempting to answer questions. It makes me feel important even though no one else will read it.*
> 
> That is accurate and true, without a doubt.



I did answer every real question, and I did not leave any excluded.

I quoted myself as both that quote and my post complimented each other on the same subject.


----------



## thunderclapp

hvp05 said:


> That is accurate and true, without a doubt.



Thunderclapp _likes_ this!


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I did answer every real question, and I did not leave any excluded.


Oh, then you can point me to where you answered this question:


VoteAgainstJP said:


> The two parents would work out everything themselves if the ignorant Courts and laws did not get in the way.


I'm curious:  when you deserted your family, was that a mutual decision between you and your ex or was that a Jimmy original?

That is a real and pertinent question because if it was a mutual decision for you to leave town and not support Jimmy Jr. then your quoted claim may seem reasonable, at least in certain cases; however, if you decided to desert of your own will, then you are blowing your own example clear out of the water.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



hvp05 said:


> Oh, then you can point me to where you answered this question:
> I'm curious:  when you deserted your family, was that a mutual decision between you and your ex or was that a Jimmy original?
> 
> That is a real and pertinent question because if it was a mutual decision for you to leave town and not support Jimmy Jr. then your quoted claim may seem reasonable, at least in certain cases; however, if you decided to desert of your own will, then you are blowing your own example clear out of the water.



I did not view that as a real question since it is so belligerent and accusatory, but for the record it was myself that broke up and ended my marriage and my wife was not in agreement with that decision.

And as I said before - "deserted" does not really mean "deserted" when the person(s) are left with nice housing and all their needs filled to overflowing then that is not quite really "deserted" but the law slanders parents by that terminology.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> I did not view that as a real question since it is so belligerent and accusatory, but for the record it was myself that broke up and ended my marriage and my wife was not in agreement with that decision.
> 
> And as I said before - "deserted" does not really mean "deserted" when the person(s) are left with nice housing and all their needs filled to overflowing then that is not quite really "deserted" but the law slanders parents by that terminology.


Are you the law now?  Because, you said you deserted your family, not the law.

You know why you said it?  Because you deserted your family.  It was a rare and special moment of honesty and clarity, that you have since tried to back away from.

The first step in repentence is to admit your faults.  Admit your faults, Jimmy.  Own them like the truck you drive illegally.  Once you own it, and accept it, you may be able to start to repent.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I did not view that as a real question since it is so belligerent and accusatory


I see you also now consider yourself the grammar police.      (Thinking of all the times you have insulted T_P or others for such silliness.)



> "deserted" does not really mean


It was your word, dumbo.  You shouldn't have used it if it was not appropriate to your intent.  Besides, you continually get hung up on that trivial issue while the substantive issue goes right over your head.



> for the record it was myself that broke up and ended my marriage and my wife was not in agreement with that decision.


At last!  Honesty - behold!

Thank you for confirming that your claim that "parents would work out everything themselves if the ignorant Courts and laws did not get in the way" is empty blathering and not a reliable way to achieve an amicable dissolution.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock and roll.*



This_person said:


> Are you the law now?  Because, you said you deserted your family, not the law.
> 
> You know why you said it?  Because you deserted your family.  It was a rare and special moment of honesty and clarity, that you have since tried to back away from.
> 
> The first step in repentence is to admit your faults.  Admit your faults, Jimmy.  Own them like the truck you drive illegally.  Once you own it, and accept it, you may be able to start to repent.






hvp05 said:


> I see you also now consider yourself the grammar police.      (Thinking of all the times you have insulted T_P or others for such silliness.)
> 
> It was your word, dumbo.  You shouldn't have used it if it was not appropriate to your intent.  Besides, you continually get hung up on that trivial issue while the substantive issue goes right over your head.
> 
> At last!  Honesty - behold!
> 
> Thank you for confirming that your claim that "parents would work out everything themselves if the ignorant Courts and laws did not get in the way" is empty blathering and not a reliable way to achieve an amicable dissolution.



I have repeatedly confessed that I was the one that destroyed my own marriage and by legal definition then I did "desert" my own family, and I do not try to deny that.

It simply has nothing to do with my campaign for Governor and nothing to do with my platform issue, and so it has nothing to do with the need to reform the evil Child Support and Custody laws.


----------



## Geruch

Everything you did, say and do, shows your true character. 

If you never had to pay child support. I doubt you would have gave much thought to Child Support reform.

You said yourself that your child support case was closed in 97. But yet, YOU decided that wasn't enough. Seem you was thinking like a child and saying it's pay back time. So you decided to vandalize the state and government buildings with spray paint.

When you was arrested all three times you were homeless. So I have to ask, Did you needed a place to stay?
You knew that vandalizing state and government property was going to land you in jail.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> Everything you did, say and do, shows your true character.



I agree.

And that suits me just fine.



Geruch said:


> If you never had to pay child support. I doubt you would have gave much thought to Child Support reform.



This is true too.

I do have first-hand and first-person experience and knowledge of how evil the Child Support and Custody laws truly are.

By me knowing the truth and the realities then the popular lies have no influence over me - thank God.



Geruch said:


> You said yourself that your child support case was closed in 97. But yet, YOU decided that wasn't enough. Seem you was thinking like a child and saying it's pay back time. So you decided to vandalize the state and government buildings with spray paint.



Claiming that a person / parent goes to jail and to prison as a childish act is not a believable doctrine.

But I certainly do want vindication and justice and rightly so.



Geruch said:


> When you was arrested all three times you were homeless. So I have to ask, Did you needed a place to stay?
> You knew that vandalizing state and government property was going to land you in jail.



Just before the first time that I spray painted the SMC Court House then I was forced into homelessness by the Child Support thieves, and it was winter January and I did expect to die from exposure, and my idea of spray painting was an inspiration as I did not want to die without reason, and so I thought that I would write my epitaph as in my dying last words explaining why and how I died, and I did not do it to get put into jail and by being put into jail then that prevented me from dying as I had planned.

Judge Raley did offer to release me in Spring if I would stay away from the Courthouse but I refused, and I told him that I would not pay any restitution either so then he gave me 18 months County time.

Then when I got out in 15 months (18 minus 3 months "good time") and then it was warm and nice weather (I believe July) as I went and did a paint job to the office of Child Support Enforcement, which was also the building housing Judge Raley's District Court.  

And then I was sentenced to 14 months by an out of town Judge, and I told the Officers in the Detention Center that I was heading to Annapolis to strike (spray paint) the State House and so I did, and it was around spring time again so the last two paintings certainly were NOT done to get housing as it is nice to be homeless when the weather is nice.

For the State House I went before the Annapolis Circuit Court and received the maximum sentence of three years in prison for the misdemeanor crime of destroying property. And I let that Judge know how I felt about the thieving Child Support too, and I did serve all three years day for day.

So I certainly did not commit such crimes just to get housing in a jail, and I made certain through the paint wording that it was known that my actions were always done as my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support system.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> [/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly confessed that I was the one that destroyed my own marriage and by legal definition then I did "desert" my own family, and I do not try to deny that.
> 
> It simply has nothing to do with my campaign for Governor and nothing to do with my platform issue, and so it has nothing to do with the need to reform the evil Child Support and Custody laws.


Except, that you say that parents won't do exactly what you (and your son) have done, and therefore there wouldn't need to be laws to protect the parents with primary physical placement, or the kids, or the parents without primary placement.

You (and your son) personify the reason for the laws, making it impossible for you to reasonably fight against the laws.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



This_person said:


> Except, that you say that parents won't do exactly what you (and your son) have done, and therefore there wouldn't need to be laws to protect the parents with primary physical placement, or the kids, or the parents without primary placement.
> 
> You (and your son) personify the reason for the laws, making it impossible for you to reasonably fight against the laws.



You continually try to deceive by putting the infamous and unfortunate "horse before the cart" as the saying goes, because the laws were first formulated long before any of us were born.

The laws turn parents into criminals and it is not based on parents creating the need for the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

The laws came first and then parents became criminals under the perverted laws.

The cruel and nasty "cart" does not go in front of the unfortunate "horse" just as the so-called "criminal parents" did not exist before the laws were created.

In my own case (as the case of all) if the C/S and Custody laws had not wrongfully turned me into a criminal then I never would have been a criminal.

Of course once the c/s law started on me then I escalated the dispute and its criminality because I believe that is the right way to fight such injustice.


----------



## Geruch

Geruch said:


> You said yourself that your child support case was closed in 97. But yet, *You* decided that wasn't enough. Seem you was thinking like a child and saying it's pay back time. So YOU decided to vandalize the state and government buildings with spray paint.





VoteJP said:


> Claiming that a person / parent goes to jail and to prison as a childish act is not a believable doctrine. But I certainly do want vindication and justice and rightly so.


Do you ever comprehend what people say? :shrug:

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I'm addressing *You*, I'm talking about *You* and only *You*. 
I'm talking about *the act of spraying graffiti on any building is childless*. Plus it's against the law.

I'm not talking about parents that go to jail for disobeying a court order.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Just before the first time that I spray painted the SMC Court House then I was forced into homelessness by the Child Support thieves, and it was winter January and I did expect to die from exposure, and my idea of spray painting was an inspiration as I did not want to die without reason, and so I thought that I would write my epitaph as in my dying last words explaining why and how I died, and I did not do it to get put into jail and by being put into jail then that prevented me from dying as I had planned.


Force into being homeless, like how? Wouldn't your family help you out? You have a total of 11 siblings.
Didn't you get a disability check then? Wasn't you able to prove that you was unable to work?
You said you was unable to work since 96. Didn't you have doctors papers to this fact? 

Homeless shelter are open in the Winter months. There's a lot of places to go to get out of the cold.

I do know what it's like to be homeless I was that way back when I was in my early 20's. I always felt I had some place to go. Then I straighten up my life and did what I had to do. Nobody else was going to do it for me. Got me a job and I rented a room. It wasn't much but it was mine.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> Do you ever comprehend what people say? :shrug:
> 
> Let me make myself perfectly clear. I'm addressing *You*, I'm talking about *You* and only *You*.
> I'm talking about *the act of spraying graffiti on any building is childless*. Plus it's against the law.
> 
> I'm not talking about parents that go to jail for disobeying a court order.



It is true that I surely am taking about more than just myself as I will be the Governor of all of Maryland.

And spray painting the Courthouse truly was great fun and adventure and I loved doing it, so if that is what you see as "childish" then so be it.

In Codependency we like to experience our "inner child" as that is a healthy thing for persons especially when in difficult situations as I was in back then.

And the "inner child" simply means a younger self, as a person 35 years old has an inner child of 34 - 33 - 32 years old and on down to age 1 or to 0.

I was angry at the thieving Child Support and that spray painting was surely a fun way for me to express that anger at the thieves.


----------



## CountryLady

VoteJP said:


> It is true that I surely am taking about more than just myself as I will be the Governor of all of Maryland.
> 
> And spray painting the Courthouse truly was great fun and adventure and I loved doing it, so if that is what you see as "childish" then so be it.
> 
> In Codependency we like to experience our "inner child" as that is a healthy thing for persons especially when in difficult situations as I was in back then.
> 
> And the "inner child" simply means a younger self, as a person 35 years old has an inner child of 34 - 33 - 32 years old and on down to age 1 or to 0.
> 
> I was angry at the thieving Child Support and that spray painting was surely a fun way for me to express that anger at the thieves.



Well, if you kept your rocket in your pocket, you wouldn't have had to worry about that,...now would you, JP?


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> Force into being homeless, like how? Wouldn't your family help you out? You have a total of 11 siblings.
> Didn't you get a disability check then? Wasn't you able to prove that you was unable to work?
> You said you was unable to work since 96. Didn't you have doctors papers to this fact?
> 
> Homeless shelter are open in the Winter months. There's a lot of places to go to get out of the cold.



The Child Support thieves made so that I lost my job and they made so I could not keep my apartment and eventually I lost my car because the Child Support demanded any cash or assets that they could steal from me, and that is how it forced me into being homeless.

Some of my siblings as did my Mom tried to help out but the Child Support thieves were too much for any help.

I did not get a disability check until 2005, and the Doctor did not certify my disabilities until 2003 when I was dumped homeless and destitute out of MD prison. So my injuries predate my certification and acceptance to disability. Plus in 1994 when I first injured my gut which is my most severe of the three injuries then I thought and expected it to heal and to get better so that I did not get my first operation until 1996 then another in 97 (and it could have been operated in 1995 then 96 as I am uncertain).

I did stay in the small southern Maryland shelter for a short while and a couple times, but it did not fit well with me because I was not factually a homeless person as not really fitting the profile because I was considered as a criminal parent and I did not fit in with other homeless persons as I was of a different class and everyone knew it.

A similar condition happened when I was put into jail as I was not really a criminal and I did not assimilate and everyone knew it and reacted accordingly.

"The servants are not to rule over the masters."


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I did stay in the small southern Maryland shelter for a short while


What did you think of that experience?  Was it fun or depressing?  Did you consider it an acceptable way to live long-term?


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The Child Support thieves made so that I lost my job and they made so I could not keep my apartment and eventually I lost my car because the Child Support demanded any cash or assets that they could steal from me, and that is how it forced me into being homeless.
> 
> Some of my siblings as did my Mom tried to help out but the Child Support thieves were too much for any help.
> 
> I did not get a disability check until 2005, and the Doctor did not certify my disabilities until 2003 when I was dumped homeless and destitute out of MD prison. So my injuries predate my certification and acceptance to disability. Plus in 1994 when I first injured my gut which is my most severe of the three injuries then I thought and expected it to heal and to get better so that I did not get my first operation until 1996 then another in 97 (and it could have been operated in 1995 then 96 as I am uncertain).
> 
> I did stay in the small southern Maryland shelter for a short while and a couple times, but it did not fit well with me because I was not factually a homeless person as not really fitting the profile because I was considered as a criminal parent and I did not fit in with other homeless persons as I was of a different class and everyone knew it.
> 
> A similar condition happened when I was put into jail as I was not really a criminal and I did not assimilate and everyone knew it and reacted accordingly.
> 
> "The servants are not to rule over the masters."


Not sure how paying Child Support could make you lose your job. 
That seems like a excuse for the real reason you lost your job.

Sorry I don't believe I made myself clear.  When I asking you about your siblings helping you out back then. I wasn't talking about them giving you money. You said you was homeless then. I was talking about one of them giving you a place to stay for awhile until you got back on your feet. You know they give you Free Room & Board and you do things around the house to earn your keep. Something to that effect.

Hummmm, Didn't think there was different class of homeless people. Never heard such a thing.
Homeless is Homeless, doesn't matter how you got that way. You all were still in the same boat. "Homeless"

You see yourself as a criminal parent. I don't see it that way. 
I see it for what it is, You disobeyed a court order to pay child support.

If the injury in 94 was so server as you say. If you was unable to work. Couldn't you have gotten a lawyer and fault it? After all you were $27,000 behind. You couldn't have been only paying very little. 

I think there's more to the story then your telling. There's two sides to every story.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



CountryLady said:


> Well, if you kept your rocket in your pocket, you wouldn't have had to worry about that,...now would you, JP?



I do believe that is the bottom line reason for the evil Child support and Custody laws which is to stop people from having children.

It is NOT about supporting or providing for children as it is only about controlling parenting.

As like in China they order only one child per couple, link, and here the law punishes parents for having children in this other way of attacking the parents through the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

What I say is that I suggest people do as the Bible says and be fruitful and to multiply, and I say to defy the ignorant laws that punish parents.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



hvp05 said:


> What did you think of that experience?  Was it fun or depressing?  Did you consider it an acceptable way to live long-term?



I give no comment on such questions.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Judge Raley did offer to release me in Spring if I would stay away from the Courthouse but I refused, and I told him that I would not pay any restitution either so then he gave me 18 months County time.
> 
> Then when I got out in 15 months (18 minus 3 months "good time") and then it was warm and nice weather (I believe July) as I went and did a paint job to the office of Child Support Enforcement, which was also the building housing Judge Raley's District Court.
> 
> And then I was sentenced to 14 months by an out of town Judge, and I told the Officers in the Detention Center that I was heading to Annapolis to strike (spray paint) the State House and so I did, and it was around spring time again so the last two paintings certainly were NOT done to get housing as it is nice to be homeless when the weather is nice.
> 
> For the State House I went before the Annapolis Circuit Court and received the maximum sentence of three years in prison for the misdemeanor crime of destroying property. And I let that Judge know how I felt about the thieving Child Support too, and I did serve all three years day for day.
> 
> So I certainly did not commit such crimes just to get housing in a jail, and I made certain through the paint wording that it was known that my actions were always done as my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support system.



1. TRESPASSING PUBLIC AGENCY AFTER HR - Arrested on 8/02/1997 - Served 2 days - 
Release 8/04/1997

2. TRESPASSING PUBLIC AGENCY AFTER HR - Arrested on 8/06/1997 - Credit Time Served: 129 days, 
Release 12/12/1997 

3. Spray painted, the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown
MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300 - Arrested on 1/04/1998 - Sentence 18 months  
Served 15 months - 
Release in March 1999

4. Spray painted, 2 pillars in front of the child support enforcement office in Leonardtown
MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300 - Arrested on 4/16/1999 - 14 months Court date 9/30/1999 - Credit Time Served: 168 days
Release between March and April 17th

5. Annapolis and spray painted the two pillars of the Maryland State House.
MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300 - WARRANT - Issued Date: 4/18/2000 - Arrested 7/03/2000 - Court date 1/17/2000
Sentence 3 years with Credit Time Served: 198 days

You said, 3 months in 94 and 6 months in 97. That's approx. 6 years wasted away in jail.
Did you really like jail that much that you would commit another crime shortly after you was release?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> What I say is that I suggest people do as the Bible says and be fruitful and to multiply, and I say to defy the ignorant laws that punish parents.


If you endorse it then the opposite must be the right way to go.

Please, folks, DO NOT HAVE MORE CHILDREN THAN YOU CAN ADEQUATELY CARE FOR!  (This message indirectly supported by JP.)




VoteJP said:


> I give no comment on such questions.


I hit a nerve!  I think that answer is sufficient to what I wanted to know.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> Not sure how paying Child Support could make you lose your job.
> That seems like a excuse for the real reason you lost your job.



The very first time that I went to the SMC Court about the Child Support - and the first time counts the most - then I went there to work out whatever the Court demanded and I intended to cooperate as I was employed as a Maintenance Inspector at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and instead of the Court working anything out it directly sent me to jail for 90 days on the work release program where one still goes to work and reports back to jail directly after work.

Thereafter before a month (or 2 weeks) had passed and I was laid off and unemployed and put into the jail general population as a criminal for being unemployed.

You can call it as an "excuse" if you want, but it does not excuse anything.



Geruch said:


> Sorry I don't believe I made myself clear.  When I asking you about your siblings helping you out back then. I wasn't talking about them giving you money. You said you was homeless then. I was talking about one of them giving you a place to stay for awhile until you got back on your feet. You know they give you Free Room & Board and you do things around the house to earn your keep. Something to that effect.



My siblings' business is none of my business so I will not here speak for them, but most of them have moved out of this area for their own reasons like better jobs and other reasons, and I intend to stay here in my home town, and over the course of years I did stay with my Mom at our family home for awhile and one of my brothers and I got a place together at another time, but I always paid my own way or else I would never stay with anyone for free.

And a big complication is that the thieving Child Support says that if a separated parent gets free rent or cheap rent then they can pay more in Child Support, which made staying at any place a problem because the Court will only recognize a legally binding rental payment or else it is deemed as free rent, so then the law can steal more as Child Support which again and again crippled me in sustaining it.



Geruch said:


> Hummmm, Didn't think there was different class of homeless people. Never heard such a thing.
> Homeless is Homeless, doesn't matter how you got that way. You all were still in the same boat. "Homeless"



I agree that it is surprising, but it turns out that there are different classes in all aspects of society even in jail or homeless or whatever.

As like I did not smoke cigarettes, and no narcotics, did not drink, was a vegan vegetarian, was well read, came from supervisory positions in my jobs, was accustomed to people doing as I instructed them, and I take command of any environment, as I know the law and know religion and psychology and more, so naturally the power structure is challenged in every case.

Even now I am the one running for Governor of Maryland, reference Proverbs 22:29, so class distinction does always matter.



Geruch said:


> You see yourself as a criminal parent. I don't see it that way.
> I see it for what it is, You disobeyed a court order to pay child support.



The thing with that is that the Child Support is a pack of lies.

So the only thing real is parenting police and parenting laws and turning parents into criminals.



Geruch said:


> If the injury in 94 was so severe as you say. If you was unable to work. Couldn't you have gotten a lawyer and fault it? After all you were $27,000 behind. You couldn't have been only paying very little.



Lawyers are very expensive, and Lawyers are on the side on the law as in they cheat and lie and steal themselves and they work more-so for the one with Custody because that is where the Lawyers can steal more money for themselves. 

And the Courts will not lower nor suspend any Child Support unless some how it is forced to do so, and many parents tell the Courts of injuries and sicknesses and accidents and the Court puts such parents into jail as it did to me twice. 

So it is true that I hated them all and I surely did not and still do not trust any of them, and on top of that I did not want to beg and plead before such a bunch of thieves.



Geruch said:


> I think there's more to the story then your telling. There's two sides to every story.



That is true, but I am the only one telling while no one else is willing, and the Court hides the c/s case records as the thieving cowards that they be.

So I tell my side as I see my side as being true and mine is the most correct side, and I am willing and available to face down any other side.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> 1. TRESPASSING PUBLIC AGENCY AFTER HR - Arrested on 8/02/1997 - Served 2 days -
> Release 8/04/1997
> 
> 2. TRESPASSING PUBLIC AGENCY AFTER HR - Arrested on 8/06/1997 - Credit Time Served: 129 days,
> Release 12/12/1997
> 
> 3. Spray painted, the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown
> MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300 - Arrested on 1/04/1998 - Sentence 18 months
> Served 15 months -
> Release in March 1999
> 
> 4. Spray painted, 2 pillars in front of the child support enforcement office in Leonardtown
> MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300 - Arrested on 4/16/1999 - 14 months Court date 9/30/1999 - Credit Time Served: 168 days
> Release between March and April 17th
> 
> 5. Annapolis and spray painted the two pillars of the Maryland State House.
> MAL DESTR PROP VALUE + $300 - WARRANT - Issued Date: 4/18/2000 - Arrested 7/03/2000 - Court date 1/17/2000
> Sentence 3 years with Credit Time Served: 198 days



Wow, I do believe that is the most accurate account of my jail record as I have ever seen posted, and I say congratulation and well done.

My first time to Court and then to jail was mid 1994 for 3 months, then again in 1996 for 6 months, and after that I was effectively ruined as I could no longer afford my car, and as you note in 8 - 1997, I became homeless and got arrested on the property of the Circuit Courthouse as I figured since they made me homeless then I would live on their front yard. I got released in 2 days and went directly back to the same spot and camped in front of the Courthouse and got arrested a second time trespassing and served the 129 days while Judge Raley thought about my case. Thereafter I stayed for the following 5 months homeless living in the Courthouse front yard, then as winter came on and I expected to die of exposure and on that Jan 4, 1997 was my first spray paint which I thought was an inspired inspiration. The cops arrested me that day but the Detention Center released me immediately on "personal recognizance" and I went back to the Courthouse and slept under the green spray paint of a few hours earlier. And I watched the paint get cleaned off on that Sunday as I do believe I painted it on Saturday night as I waited for the 7th day Sabbath to end before I did the crime.    



Geruch said:


> You said, 3 months in 94 and 6 months in 97. That's approx. 6 years wasted away in jail.
> Did you really like jail that much that you would commit another crime shortly after you was release?



At that time I was a very self disciplined person, and I would do as I saw fitting and right to do and NOT because of "liking" it or of not liking anything.

I did not like jail but I did try to make the best of it once I got there.

I did not like any of the events as I hated the Child Support injustices and the thievery, and I resented the crimes done against me.

When I trespassed it was because I felt that I had no where else to go and I refused to hide in any way, but when I spray painted the Courthouse with the words "Child Support is legalized thievery" and on another pillar I wrote "Thou shalt not steal" then that was, IMO, my very first crime as an act of non violent civil disobedience, and I was very proud of it at that time and proud of it ever after. And my son's Mom liked green which is why I chose that color.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> You continually try to deceive by putting the infamous and unfortunate "horse before the cart" as the saying goes, because the laws were first formulated long before any of us were born.



Putting the horse before the cart is being deceptive? I take it you are more of a "cart before the horse" type. Not surprising, really.

It's also not surprising that you continue to make fun of retarded people by using the short bus smiley. Even after being told what it means to those you think will vote for you, you persist. You're no different than someone who continues to use the word "negro" even though society considers it to be degrading.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I always paid my own way or else I would never stay with anyone for free.


What a rare event - you sound like an adult.  The change from how you were then to now is astonishing.



> As like I did not smoke cigarettes, and no narcotics, did not drink, was a vegan vegetarian, was well read, came from supervisory positions in my jobs, was accustomed to people doing as I instructed them, and I take command of any environment, as I know the law and know religion and psychology and more, so naturally the power structure is challenged in every case.


I see that even when you were responsible you were still delusional.  It must be disappointing to have once been in a position of control to now being in a position where practically everyone you meet laughs at you.



> So I tell my side as I see my side as being true and mine is the most correct side, and I am willing and available to face down any other side.


That is a good thing for you that the court has sealed the records; that allows you to spout any untruths you wish with little opposition.  On the other hand, we don't need to know all the details of your case to know that your current ideas are fatally flawed... and will fail forevermore.   




VoteJP said:


> I stayed for the following 5 months homeless living in the Courthouse front yard, then as winter came on and I expected to die of exposure and on that Jan 4, 1997 was my first spray paint which I thought was an inspired inspiration.


This may be telling.  Perhaps all that time spent in the open elements did some permanent damage to the mechanism upstairs.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That is true, but I am the only one telling while no one else is willing, and *the Court hides the c/s case records *as the thieving cowards that they be. So I tell my side as I see my side as being true and mine is the most correct side, and I am willing and available to face down any other side.


You would say that, Since your ex has passed away and so did her second husband. 
They can't speak for themselves, now can they. 

Your either lying or you just know what the laws are. Maybe both
You said, "The Court hides the c/s case records." Which that is false. 

Didn't you tell another person on another forum when they was telling you their side of the story. That you didn't think it was accurate and a true account. You told that person, that the ex would have a different story. Something to that effect. I'll have to fine that post again. Cause you was really dogging that person as if they were lying. I believe it was a woman that posted it.


VoteJP said:


> The very first time that I went to the SMC Court about the Child Support - and the first time counts the most - then I went there to work out whatever the Court demanded and I intended to cooperate as I was employed as a Maintenance Inspector at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and instead of the Court working anything out it directly sent me to jail for 90 days on the work release program where one still goes to work and reports back to jail directly after work.
> 
> Thereafter before a month (or 2 weeks) had passed and I was laid off and unemployed and put into the jail general population as a criminal for being unemployed.


Since you were directly put in jail and didn't pass go and collect $200.
Apparently you was several months behind on child support payments.

You said, You intended to cooperate. I think if you would have let them know before you got in the hole, it may have worked out differently. I don't know.  Had to be tough getting laid off from your job. There was a lot of people that lost their jobs in 08' and 09'. Some lost just about everything that had.   

I have a habit of saying, There's no excuse. Got that from my mother. Everytime I would say, I couldn't, didn't or can't. 
She would say, There's no excuse if you try hard enough, at least you tried your best. I won't say there's no excuse to you anymore.



VoteJP said:


> My siblings' business is none of my business so I will not here speak for them, but most of them have moved out of this area for their own reasons like better jobs and other reasons, and I intend to stay here in my home town, and over the course of years I did stay with my Mom at our family home for awhile and one of my brothers and I got a place together at another time, but I always paid my own way or else I would never stay with anyone for free.


Sorry if I over step my bounds. I didn't want to know the history of your family. Just wanted to know if they helped you out or not in your time of need. You said you was homeless and didn't have a job. I was just wondering. My family is close and we help each other out when we can. 



VoteJP said:


> Wow, I do believe that is the most accurate account of my jail record as I have ever seen posted, and I say congratulation and well done.


Well thanks, I know how to search records and how to read them. Been doing it long enough.


----------



## Geruch

hvp05 said:


> That is a good thing for you that the court has sealed the records; that allows you to spout any untruths you wish with little opposition.  On the other hand, we don't need to know all the details of your case to know that your current ideas are fatally flawed... and will fail forevermore.



I wouldn't let JP fool you when he said, "*The Court hides the c/s records*." That's not true.

Divorce, child support, alimony is consider Public Record and can be veiw by the public either on the computer or by going down at the court house. Only way to get a case seal from Public view is by filing a *"Motion to Seal"* the records. But this won't work for all cases, especially of criminal nature. Along with other expections to the rule. 

A seal docket will read just the way JP divorce docket. 
You can look it up here:  Maryland Judiciary Case Search


> A seal docket, Take a look below
> Case Status: Closed/Inactive
> Case Disposition: *Administrative Close *- Disposition Date:*03/06/1998*


Unseal/ Public Record that can be view by the public will read like this:


> Case Status: Closed/Active
> Case Disposition: *Decree or Order *Disposition Date: 03/06/1998
> 
> Notice the bold print. See the difference between the two?



If you look further down the page on JP divorce record, Your see:


> Doc No./Seq No.: 2/0
> File Date: 02/19/1998 Close Date:03/06/1998 Decision:
> Document Name: *Correspondence (Letter from defendant) *
> 
> I'm pretty sure it was "Motion to Seal" that was filed.
> All it would take would be a quick trip to the court house.



Take a look at other Divorce cases, Child Support cases. Your see all the other information. Such as, How much their paying in child support. Whether or not a blood test was taken. What their lawyer's names are. Things of that nature. 

Prime example is his son JP Jr public record, or even a friend or someone you know that's  been divorce. Maybe someone that pays or didn't pay child support.  Your see exactly what I mean by Public Record. Even my own divorce record show how much child support is. What lawyers we had, etc. That's all because I didn't file a "Motion to Seal".

All I can say is, That I search a lot of court records in my time.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> I wouldn't let JP fool you when he said, "*The Court hides the c/s records*." That's not true.
> 
> Divorce, child support, alimony is consider Public Record and can be veiw by the public either on the computer or by going down at the court house. Only way to get a case seal from Public view is by filing a *"Motion to Seal"* the records. But this won't work for all cases, especially of criminal nature. Along with other expections to the rule.



The issue might just be that it is only ONLY the St Mary's County Court that hides the Child Support case records and I suspect this might be the problem.

I even helped to take one case to the MD Court of Special Appeals and the case was sealed in SMC Court while that same case completely open to unrestricted public view in the MD High Court.

The SMC Court is not only notoriously corrupt but it is also extremely paranoid too.

The Child Support cases were open to the public until the infamous case that showed the SMC Court as mistreating the parents and denying the parents their due process and even denying established civil rights and even proper Court etiquette for parents, and instead of cleaning up the Court and instead of firing the criminal master-of-the-Court F. Michael Harris, then the SMC Court simply sealed the records from public scrutiny, and I do believe they knew myself well and they particularly wanted to hide their dirty deeds from me who they knew would actively expose their injustices. 

The case in question linked = Thrower v. Support enforcement May 8, 2000, or link Court of Appeals, HERE.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The issue might just be that it is only ONLY the St Mary's County Court that hides the Child Support case records and I suspect this might be the problem.



If that was the case which I don't believe it is. Then your son case would have been hidden, plus a old neighbor of mine that lived in St. Mary's County.

I was only talking about St Mary's County Court that's located in Leonardtown
I'm not talking about MD Court of Special Appeals that's located in Annapolis.


----------



## LusbyMom

Hey JP... you say that the courts steal from parents.. and leave them with nothing no matter what the circumstances are.. well let me tell you about a man that was in child support court today...

He owed $17,860... wanna know what his purge amount was to keep him out of jail??  A whopping $25.... and then he only has to pay $10 a month... on $17,860... the reason.. he has medical problems. So don't even begin to tell me the courts are unfair to NCP's. That seems like a sweet deal to me.. and somewhere is a mom expected to support a child/children with $10 a month.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



LusbyMom said:


> Hey JP... you say that the courts steal from parents.. and leave them with nothing no matter what the circumstances are.. well let me tell you about a man that was in child support court today...
> 
> He owed $17,860... wanna know what his purge amount was to keep him out of jail??  A whopping $25.... and then he only has to pay $10 a month... on $17,860... the reason.. he has medical problems. So don't even begin to tell me the courts are unfair to NCP's. That seems like a sweet deal to me.. and somewhere is a mom expected to support a child/children with $10 a month.



What that means is they are stealing $25 from a sick man to pay off a thievery system that has no morality, and $10 - $25 a month is a pittance but not to the one that is sick.

How can you not see the immoral ignorance of stealing the last few dollars from a sick person? and as we all already know the children have everything they need completely furnished.

Why not go out and rob some homeless people too? as you might be able to steal another $10 per month.

And do you not think that a sick person might need far more than $25 just to by over the counter medications? and if he can hardly pay $10 per month than that makes him dead broke and destitute.

If all he could afford were $100 per month then that still means he is dirt broke and destitute because $100 is nothing except to the dirt poor it is their livelihood.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> What that means is they are stealing $25 from a sick man to pay off a thievery system that has no morality, and $10 - $25 a month is a pittance but not to the one that is sick.
> 
> How can you not see the immoral ignorance of stealing the last few dollars from a sick person? and as we all already know the children have everything they need completely furnished.
> 
> Why not go out and rob some homeless people too? as you might be able to steal another $10 per month.
> 
> And do you not think that a sick person might need far more than $25 just to by over the counter medications? and if he can hardly pay $10 per month than that makes him dead broke and destitute.
> 
> If all he could afford were $100 per month then that still means he is dirt broke and destitute because $100 is nothing except to the dirt poor it is their livelihood.



I think LusbyMom point is that even though a parent gets behind. (CSE) Child Support enforcement are willing to work with you. At least that's the way I took her post.

CSE goes by your income and the other parent income, so no way is he totally broke by paying $10 a month. 
Seem to me that he's been in contact with the CSE trying to do the right thing. Otherwise, he would be in jail for non support.

Raising children isn't FREE and shouldn't fall on others. Which you think it should.

JP Cusick, How can you believe parents shouldn't pay child support? 
Oh that's right, You believe the parent that has custody should provide all. 

It's not stealing, It's called, SUPPORTING YOUR OWN CHILDREN, the best you can.  
It stops parents from expecting others and the government to support their children. 
If someone doesn't want to support their own children. Then they should of never had children.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> The laws turn parents into criminals and it is not based on parents creating the need for the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> The laws came first and then parents became criminals under the perverted laws.


You deserted your family because of child support and custody laws?



You continue to amaze me.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> I think LusbyMom point is that even though a parent gets behind. (CSE) Child Support enforcement are willing to work with you. At least that's the way I took her post.
> 
> CSE goes by your income and the other parent income, so no way is he totally broke by paying $10 a month.
> Seem to me that he's been in contact with the CSE trying to do the right thing. Otherwise, he would be in jail for non support.



Yes, the sick father would be in jail otherwise, but then he might not be able to pay the $25 and might be thrown in jail yet?

The Dad is sick and unable to pay a higher amount, but still the Court steals or extorts $10 from a sick Man to pay a Custodial that already has everything.

It is God that will punish that kind of thievery, and I pray for God's justice to come quickly.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Yes, the sick father would be in jail otherwise, but then he might not be able to pay the $25 and might be thrown in jail yet?
> 
> The Dad is sick and unable to pay a higher amount, but still the Court steals or extorts $10 from a sick Man to pay a Custodial that already has everything.
> 
> It is God that will punish that kind of thievery, and I pray for God's justice to come quickly.


LusbyMom doesn't state whether the father is physically sick. 
She said he had a medical problems. What kind of medical problems. I don't know, neither do you.

92% of custodial parents receiving child support instead of a welfare check is a pretty good number.

It's not stealing, It's called, SUPPORTING YOUR OWN CHILDREN, the best you can. 

This is a more true accurate website about James P. Cusick Sr.  votejp-cusick?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> Yes, the sick father would be in jail otherwise, but then he might not be able to pay the $25 and might be thrown in jail yet?
> 
> The Dad is sick and unable to pay a higher amount, but still the Court steals or extorts $10 from a sick Man to pay a Custodial that already has everything.
> 
> It is God that will punish that kind of thievery, and I pray for God's justice to come quickly.



The amount was set based upon the income he does receive so it is affordable for his income. 

So tell me how it is that you come to the conclusion that the Custodial already has everything. How exactly do you know that?


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



Geruch said:


> LusbyMom doesn't state whether the father is physically sick.
> She said he had a medical problems. What kind of medical problems. I don't know, neither do you.



It does not matter how the person is sick because it is still extorting money from a sick person, and it surely is not some minor sickness as like a common cold in front of the the thieving Child Support Court because the only way those thieves give any consideration is if the Dad is sick to death with a Doctor's certification.

And the Court records are sealed because the cowardly Child Support thieves do not let the public know what really goes on in their ignorant Court processing. As like stealing from the poor and extorting the sick parents and incarcerating the dead broke parents.



Geruch said:


> 92% of custodial parents receiving child support instead of a welfare check is a pretty good number.



It is a "good" number only when one sees stealing as a "good" thing, and when one sees breaking up families as a "good"thing then again that makes it into a "good" number, but otherwise it is a number that shows the utter ignorance of the Child Support thievery.

Those same 92% of parents have taken the children away from the child's other parent and the Child Support has made families breaking up into a profitable event.

And there is no reason to believe any of those 92% are on welfare, and if any custodial does go onto the welfare then they do not get the Child Support even if it is paid in full because the State keeps the c/s loot instead of giving it to the welfare families.



Geruch said:


> It's not stealing, It's called, SUPPORTING YOUR OWN CHILDREN, the best you can.



You taking some thing that does not belong to you is stealing.

Taking some one else's money is stealing.

Taking by force as the thieving Child Support and Custody laws do is dirty rotten stealing.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



LusbyMom said:


> The amount was set based upon the income he does receive so it is affordable for his income.



If a parent can only afford to pay $100 then they are equivalent to being dead broke because the parents need far more than that just to survive in this world.

When $100 is virtually nothing, then taking $25 and $10 from a sick person is a sin, and it is God that the thieves need to fear.



LusbyMom said:


> So tell me how it is that you come to the conclusion that the Custodial already has everything. How exactly do you know that?



The custodial parents have everything they need unless they are incompetent or abusers.

That is because everything needed is readily available to any custodial in need through various means, and if the custodial refuses or fails for any reason to not provide the needs required for custody then they need to be reported to the authorities to have the children removed and to investigate the competency or the criminality of any such custodial.

Since everything is available then a custodial that does not provide is therefore incompetent or an abuser.


----------



## AeroTaken

VoteJP said:


> If a parent can only afford to pay $100 then they are equivalent to being dead broke because the parents need far more than that just to survive in this world.
> 
> When $100 is virtually nothing, then taking $25 and $10 from a sick person is a sin, and it is God that the thieves need to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> The custodial parents have everything they need unless they are incompetent or abusers.
> 
> That is because everything needed is readily available to any custodial in need through various means, and if the custodial refuses or fails for any reason to not provide the needs required for custody then they need to be reported to the authorities to have the children removed and to investigate the competency or the criminality of any such custodial.
> 
> Since everything is available then a custodial that does not provide is therefore incompetent or an abuser.



Haven't checked in on this tread in a long time but something compelled me to read the lastest 3 pages today.  I know its been said here many, many, many times....but I'd like to reiterate, you are completely insane.  Perhaps that is why JP continues to use the , because he DOES.  That is all.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> If a parent can only afford to pay $100 then they are equivalent to being dead broke because the parents need far more than that just to survive in this world.
> 
> When $100 is virtually nothing, then taking $25 and $10 from a sick person is a sin, and it is God that the thieves need to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> The custodial parents have everything they need unless they are incompetent or abusers.
> 
> That is because everything needed is readily available to any custodial in need through various means, and if the custodial refuses or fails for any reason to not provide the needs required for custody then they need to be reported to the authorities to have the children removed and to investigate the competency or the criminality of any such custodial.
> 
> Since everything is available then a custodial that does not provide is therefore incompetent or an abuser.



It's a sin to make a child and not take care of that child.


----------



## VoteJP

*The rock.*



LusbyMom said:


> The amount was set based upon the income he does receive so it is affordable for his income.



If a person has $100 then they can afford to pay a $25 purge and $10 per month - but that is not true and it is a lie.

The person has to pay their own rent and have to eat all month and have to pay the many cost of living and then one might afford some payment after their own valid expenses.

A person with only $100 can not afford to give away $25 + $10 because the person is already dirt poor and destitute.

If the parent pays $800 per month rent and $200 for food and unknown medical expenses and transportation and other cost of living then the parent needs at least an estimated $1,400 per month just to break even, which means if the law takes the $25 + $10 then the parent will be $35 short of survival. That one needs to make $1,435 to deduct the $35 just to break even as he would then be dead broke at the end of each month with every cent spent.

This is reality but it is NOT what the thieving Child Support does in extorting money from parents, as in $1,400 the law demands 25% or more, which would be $350 per month leaving the parent without the ability to live on their own salary.

What it does add up to is oppression and injustice, and it is totally unnecessary.



LusbyMom said:


> It's a sin to make a child and not take care of that child.



Except the children are being taken care of and the children do have everything they need in abundance.

Of course the children need ready access to both parents and that the law denies to the children.

The sin is to claim the children are in need of money as that is a complete lie.

Claiming the child is NOT cared for is another lie.

To sin is fairly simply like do not steal, do not cheat, do not lie, but there is no such sin as - thy must pay thy thieves - no.

And not just that because included is that the law and the custodial have stolen the children from their other parent.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> Except the children are being taken care of and the children do have everything they need in abundance.



You tell them shortbus!!!

Explain to them how kids don't need bedrooms, or even beds. They can just sleep on the couch.

Pillows and blankets are just "extras."

Or tell them how kids don't eat much because their mouths are small.

Anything more than 200 calories per day is just "extras."


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> If a person has $100 then they can afford to pay a $25 purge and $10 per month - but that is not true and it is a lie.
> 
> The person has to pay their own rent and have to eat all month and have to pay the many cost of living and then one might afford some payment after their own valid expenses.
> 
> A person with only $100 can not afford to give away $25 + $10 because the person is already dirt poor and destitute.
> 
> If the parent pays $800 per month rent and $200 for food and unknown medical expenses and transportation and other cost of living then the parent needs at least an estimated $1,400 per month just to break even, which means if the law takes the $25 + $10 then the parent will be $35 short of survival. That one needs to make $1,435 to deduct the $35 just to break even as he would then be dead broke at the end of each month with every cent spent.
> 
> This is reality but it is NOT what the thieving Child Support does in extorting money from parents, as in $1,400 the law demands 25% or more, which would be $350 per month leaving the parent without the ability to live on their own salary.
> 
> What it does add up to is oppression and injustice, and it is totally unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Except the children are being taken care of and the children do have everything they need in abundance.
> 
> Of course the children need ready access to both parents and that the law denies to the children.
> 
> The sin is to claim the children are in need of money as that is a complete lie.
> 
> Claiming the child is NOT cared for is another lie.
> 
> To sin is fairly simply like do not steal, do not cheat, do not lie, but there is no such sin as - thy must pay thy thieves - no.
> 
> And not just that because included is that the law and the custodial have stolen the children from their other parent.



First off where are you getting the $100 amount from? I never said $100. Second the purge is a ONE time payment of $25. The monthly payment is $10. So if the NCP is spending $200 in food than he can spend $10 less a month and have Ramen noodles one night instead of steak. 

You are quick to add up the expenses of a NCP. Now lets talk about the cost of raising a child. How much does it cost for that extra bedroom, and breakfast, lunch and dinner, electric, school supplies,water,  clothes that kids grow out of on a regular basis, shoes, medical bills, dental bills, medicine. That's just the beginning of the expenses for a kid the list is endless. 

Children are in need of money because all of their needs cost money.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> And the Court records are sealed because the cowardly Child Support thieves do not let the public know what really goes on in their ignorant Court processing. As like stealing from the poor and extorting the sick parents and incarcerating the dead broke parents.
> 
> Those same 92% of parents have taken the children away from the child's other parent and the Child Support has made families breaking up into a profitable event. And there is no reason to believe any of those 92% are on welfare, and if any custodial does go onto the welfare then they do not get the Child Support even if it is paid in full because the State keeps the c/s loot instead of giving it to the welfare families.





> CSE Highlights: In 2007, 92 percent of child support collections have gone to families. Welfare recipients now make up just 14 percent of our caseload; the largest group of clients is families who no longer need public assistance, in large part because of child support collections. Preliminary data indicate that, in FY 2007:
> ACF Office of Public Affairs (OPA): Fact Sheet - Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)




Why not say what's on your mine. 

VoteJP believes, No parent should be force to financially support their child if they don't want to. Supporting one own children should be done voluntarily, not by force.  If and when they don't want to support their own children. Then the other parent can go to other people for help, If they need to. 

Since one gets a divorce, that's when you stop giving the bucks. The child has everything they need. The absent parent has better things to spend their money on. Like housing, food, whatever else they deem fit to spend their
 money on. How dare amyone demand a parent to support my own child.

That's you in a nut shell. Cold and distant.

Your mother went to college, a well educated woman, a hard worker. Had 12 children to raise. 
What happen to you? A birdie told me that you was in a cult, Is that true?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> First off where are you getting the $100 amount from? I never said $100. Second the purge is a ONE time payment of $25. The monthly payment is $10.



I said $100 because when the $100 is insufficient then that demonstrates that the $25 and $10 is the actions of petty thieves that will steal the last dollar from a sick man.

If you or your kind had any decency in you then you would be giving the sick man $100 instead of stealing his $10 but you do not.



LusbyMom said:


> You are quick to add up the expenses of a NCP. Now lets talk about the cost of raising a child. How much does it cost for that extra bedroom, and breakfast, lunch and dinner, electric, school supplies,water,  clothes that kids grow out of on a regular basis, shoes, medical bills, dental bills, medicine. That's just the beginning of the expenses for a kid the list is endless.
> 
> Children are in need of money because all of their needs cost money.



The difference is huge, because the custodial with child has ready access to all sorts of Public Assistance or various other avenues to get all their needs filled and more, while the non custodial parent has no such avenues at all.

The custodial has no needs unfilled while stealing from the parent that does have great needs un-fillable.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The difference is huge, because the custodial with child has ready access to all sorts of Public Assistance or various other avenues to get all their needs filled and more, while the non custodial parent has no such avenues at all.
> 
> The custodial has no needs unfilled while stealing from the parent that does have great needs un-fillable.



There's your problem, You wasn't man enough to support and raise your own child.
But you expect others to support your own child. No wonder your son moved far away from you.

Your not a father in any sense of the word.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The difference is huge, because the custodial with child has ready access to all sorts of Public Assistance or various other avenues to get all their needs filled and more, while the non custodial parent has no such avenues at all.


*LIAR!*  Or is it that you were too stupid and lazy to do a quick search to learn some facts?  Oh, but facts would hurt your one-man crusade.

Personally, I think you were lying because you have posted enough links, and surely anyone running for governor knows that the state has the Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene which is partly tasked with providing health care to a whole list of different types of people.

And you know that anyone can visit a shelter for warmth and food because you did that yourself, as you told us a few days ago, after you lost your job.

More deserving of the nickname Shortbus, one could not be.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> *LIAR!*  Or is it that you were too stupid and lazy to do a quick search to learn some facts?  Oh, but facts would hurt your one-man crusade.
> 
> Personally, I think you were lying because you have posted enough links, and surely anyone running for governor knows that the state has the Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene which is partly tasked with providing health care to a whole list of different types of people.
> 
> And you know that anyone can visit a shelter for warmth and food because you did that yourself, as you told us a few days ago, after you lost your job.



It hurts me that you would call me a "liar", especially when I expect so much better from you.

I surely did not and do not lie, and your link specifically shows support for custodial parents and for children so they can have everything they need to over flowing, but it does not show any kind of public assistance for separated parents that can not afford the Child Support thievery.

So in fact you gave proof that my words were true and accurate with no lie.



hvp05 said:


> More deserving of the nickname Shortbus, one could not be.



 I like this nickname of "shortbus", and I see no insult accordingly.


----------



## Geruch

From the link that *hvp05* provided. hvp05 is true and accurate with no lies.

*INDIVIDUALS* UNABLE TO OBTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE

Maryland Health Insurance Program (MHIP) Offers affordable health insurance to 
Marylanders who are unable to obtain health insurance coverage.

ADDITIONAL HEALTH COVERAGE OPTIONS: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC)
Offers sliding scale medical care for *uninsured individuals* and families

Maryland Qualified Health Centers (MQHC): Offers sliding-scale and subsidized medical care 
for *uninsured individuals* and families.  Find a MQHC on Maryland's list of centers

MARYLAND MEDBANK PROGRAM: Provides access to free medicines for low-income, uninsured patients in Maryland.

NeedyMeds: Free, nationwide non-profit resource for people who need help with the cost of medication.  
Offers up to a 75% discount on medication.

Separated parent is consider a Individual, So they can get help if one qualify base on their income.

Just like public assistance, section 8, public housing, food stamps and medical card, etc. 
A person may or may not qualify base on their income. There is help out their for individuals.

JP Cusick, You words aren't true and accurate with no lies. Maybe you should have read first before you spoke.

The more time goes by, the more it shows that your uneducated about Government issues.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> it does not show any kind of public assistance for separated parents


Pssst...






That is a  *LIE*  also!

Perhaps you were looking for the header "Non-custodial Parents Who Can Not Afford the Abuses of Child Support", in which case you would be correct but only because there is no such person.

Go back and actually READ the link before responding and you will realize the help that is available.  (But I know you wont, which is why I won't waste any more time on it.  At least the non-short bus riders will understand.)


----------



## daisycreek

hmm the evil child support thieves only try to tear families apart? I guess you did not do any RECENT research or link posting IE:

_The Community Services Administration and the Child Support Enforcement Administration (CSEA) have partnered with the Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development (CFWD) to provide a program to low-income couples with children. *The goal is to provide unmarried parents with the relationship sustaining skills and the supportive services they need to remain together and, consequently, to establish increased positive outcomes for their children*_
Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR

_*Parenting plan mediation *gives parents who do not live together an opportunity to make decisions together about their children. Parenting plan mediation can assist parents with decisions such as: 


•Communication with the children,•Communication between parents,•Living Arrangements ,•Schedules ,•Education ,•Religion 
•And many other topics parents wish to discuss _
Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR

OH, and the evil c/s theives just want all the parents money:

_*Child Support Payment Incentive Program* 
The program encourages non custodial parents (NCP) to make consistent child support payments by:

•Reducing arrears by half if the NCP makes full child support payments for one year. 
•Eliminating the balance owed if the (NCP) makes full child support payments for two years.  
_

Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR

*Why does Child Support Enforcement exist?  *Child Support exists
1) to raise the standard of living for children by enforcing their right to support from both of their parents and 
2) to reduce or recover welfare costs. 

Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> hmm the evil child support thieves only try to tear families apart? I guess you did not do any RECENT research or link posting IE:
> 
> _The Community Services Administration and the Child Support Enforcement Administration (CSEA) have partnered with the Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development (CFWD) to provide a program to low-income couples with children. *The goal is to provide unmarried parents with the relationship sustaining skills and the supportive services they need to remain together and, consequently, to establish increased positive outcomes for their children*_
> Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR
> 
> _*Parenting plan mediation *gives parents who do not live together an opportunity to make decisions together about their children. Parenting plan mediation can assist parents with decisions such as:
> 
> 
> •Communication with the children,•Communication between parents,•Living Arrangements ,•Schedules ,•Education ,•Religion
> •And many other topics parents wish to discuss _
> Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR
> 
> OH, and the evil c/s theives just want all the parents money:
> 
> _*Child Support Payment Incentive Program*
> The program encourages non custodial parents (NCP) to make consistent child support payments by:
> 
> •Reducing arrears by half if the NCP makes full child support payments for one year.
> •Eliminating the balance owed if the (NCP) makes full child support payments for two years.
> _
> 
> Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR
> 
> *Why does Child Support Enforcement exist?  *Child Support exists
> 1) to raise the standard of living for children by enforcing their right to support from both of their parents and
> 2) to reduce or recover welfare costs.
> 
> Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program - MDHR



It is all a fraud, and just look at the forms and the requirements and the petty degrading language of it all.

The bottom line forever remains that an honest parent that actually shows up at the thieving Child Support Court and tells that they can not afford the thievery are sent to jail.

So you can put a pretty smile on a violent thief, but it is steal stealing.


----------



## hvp05

daisycreek said:


> _*Child Support Payment Incentive Program*
> The program encourages non custodial parents (NCP) to make consistent child support payments by:
> 
> •Reducing arrears by half if the NCP makes full child support payments for one year.
> •Eliminating the balance owed if the (NCP) makes full child support payments for two years.
> _


That is interesting, isn't it?  Can't be more fair than that.



> *Why does Child Support Enforcement exist?  *Child Support exists
> 1) to raise the standard of living for children by enforcing their right to support from both of their parents and
> 2) to reduce or recover welfare costs.


However, if you want children to have a much lower standard of living by relying on public assistance (and you enjoy paying more in taxes)... Vote Shortbus (JP)!! 





VoteJP said:


> just look at the forms and the requirements and the petty degrading language of it all.


I don't see any of that.   :shrug:  I challenge your accusation.  You need to do a lot better.  We're waiting.   

Oh, and it looks like you are hoping to simply ignore being proven a liar (again), but I think I'll bump that post every few pages.  All the way to the election.


----------



## thunderclapp

daisycreek said:


> Why does Child Support Enforcement exist?  Child Support exists
> 1) to raise the standard of living for children by enforcing their right to support from both of their parents and
> 2) *to reduce or recover welfare costs*.


Reduce or recover welfare costs.  Just what we've been saying all along when he says it is stolen if they get welfare.

Coming up... another childish, wimpy, delusional denial of the plain, obvious truth from Jimmy Boy.


----------



## Geruch

Mr. Cusick, who was diagnosed during a psychiatric evaluation as having a personality disorder with excessive/compulsive traits, requested a jury trial but had no attorney. He denied having any mental illness, but when asked by Judge Lerner when he would stop vandalizing buildings, he did not give an answer after pondering the question for several seconds.

Read The Truth Here: Homeless man gets 3 years for graffiti
Another forum poster from another forum brought the full article.

Passing on the info


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



thunderclapp said:


> Reduce or recover welfare costs.  Just what we've been saying all along when he says it is stolen if they get welfare.



I do not deny that, as I say that is the most realistic reason for the Child Support laws which is to control the poorer people of the population because the thievery surely does not help the real family or the parents.

The Child Support and Custody laws destroy families and alienates children from their parents and it undermines our social structure, and then the State takes the Child Support paid for the poorest of poor families to recover welfare cost.

My plan is that we start promoting marriage and helping families and stop the opposite.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> I do not deny that, as I say that is the most realistic reason for the Child Support laws which is to control the poorer people of the population because the thievery surely does not help the real family or the parents.



You got that one completely wrong, shortbus. Welfare is the tool that the elitist progressives use to control poor people. Child support enforcement actually frees borderline families from being dependent on the government, which frees them from government control.

Child support enforcement actually helps to keep families together. When you bailed on your wife and kid you thought you could just walk away to drink, drug, and rape with no consequences. If you would have known that the state would come after you for what you were not man enough to provide, you probably would have tried to reconcile.

By the time you found out that there were consequences to be paid for your immaturiity and greed it was too late.

By the way, why did you lie about being diagnosed with mental illness? Is there any reason other than not liking the diagnosis?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



MMDad said:


> You got that one completely wrong, shortbus. Welfare is the tool that the elitist progressives use to control poor people. Child support enforcement actually frees borderline families from being dependent on the government, which frees them from government control.



There is some truth in that when one is only concerned about the money with no real regard for the people injured or the damages to our society.

When it is only about money then stealing works just fine as the more you steal then the more loot you get.

But in doing that money collection the Child Support and Custody laws destroys families, promotes divorces, undermine religions, children with one parent alienated, and broken families all across the USA, so stealing works for stealing money while it destroys everything of any real value.  

Welfare as intended and long ago (no more) then welfare was meant to help poor families in their needs because the foundation of every society is in the security of the family structure of our poorest citizens, and as the poor and lower working class families deteriorate than that foundation will collapse and rightly so.

The more our society and its laws destroy families and undermines marriage and violates religion then chaos will come in due time.



MMDad said:


> Child support enforcement actually helps to keep families together.



It does not, as the Child Support and Custody laws makes so marriage is weaker and it is profitable to separate and divorce, and it empowers the breaking up of families.

The false claim of helping families is in that it helps single parent families, and it helps 2nd and 3rd families as the laws breaks up and destroys the original family unit and that is the one which counts the most.

A single parent (Mom or Dad) getting Child Support is helping the single parent to stay away from the other parent, and yet the law claims it is helping families when it is helping a single parent with child while it is not helping the marriage, and it is not helping the two parents who are divided and alienated by that ignorant process.

To religion the family means the Mom and Dad with their children, while under State law "the family" means a custodial parent and a separate alienated parent.



MMDad said:


> By the way, why did you lie about being diagnosed with mental illness? Is there any reason other than not liking the diagnosis?



I did not lie and it still no lie as I never had a mental illness and still do not.

The anti-social behavior were act of civil disobedience which I am still very proud of doing, and it is anti-social because our social laws are immoral and debased and need to be fought. And calling it compulsive since I did the crime three times is a silly claim as like my campaigning is now three times so it can be called compulsive too under that same criteria.

Mental illness is where the person is ill as in sickly and debilitating, while my actions have been successful and rewarding and fun, and most importantly that mine are empowering.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> To religion the family means the Mom and Dad with their children, while under State law "the family" means a custodial parent and a separate alienated parent.



If that is what religion means, then what does Dad leaving Mom and their children mean?  The child support laws did not break up your marriage.  YOU did.  Fact is fact.  Only someone who is delusional like you have can not see that.  And from reading your posts, you make up your own religion anyway so *your* religion means doing and saying anything you damn well please.  That's how your twisted mind justifies everything you have done and will do.  That is why you need to be on every watch list that exists.  Your forums *chatter* needs to be monitored.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I did not lie and it still no lie as I never had a mental illness and still do not.
> 
> The anti-social behavior were act of civil disobedience which I am still very proud of doing, and it is anti-social because our social laws are immoral and debased and need to be fought. And calling it compulsive since I did the crime three times is a silly claim as like my campaigning is now three times so it can be called compulsive too under that same criteria.
> 
> Mental illness is where the person is ill as in sickly and debilitating, while my actions have been successful and rewarding and fun, and most importantly that mine are empowering.



A person with a mental illness isn't going to admit to it. Unless their ready to. But of course you don't have to. We can read what the paper wrote. The newspaper isn't going to print something that isn't true. If they would, it's easy to ask for a retraction. 

A source told me that you was in a cult in Ca. Is that true? Or what that just hot air?


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> Mr. Cusick, who was diagnosed during a psychiatric evaluation as having a personality disorder with excessive/compulsive traits, requested a jury trial but had no attorney. He denied having any mental illness, but when asked by Judge Lerner when he would stop vandalizing buildings, he did not give an answer after pondering the question for several seconds.
> 
> Read The Truth Here: Homeless man gets 3 years for graffiti
> Another forum poster from another forum brought the full article.
> 
> Passing on the info



Thanks for the link. This is worth reposting every day.


Mr. Cusick, who was diagnosed during a psychiatric evaluation as having a personality disorder with excessive/compulsive traits, requested a jury trial but had no attorney.

He denied having any mental illness, but when asked by Judge Lerner when he would stop vandalizing buildings, he did not give an answer after pondering the question for several seconds.Ms. Prigge requested Mr. Cusick be incarcerated, saying there's no indication his antisocial behavior will cease. She speculated his dislike of child support laws stems from the time he spent in jail in 1995 for failure to pay support.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> The newspaper isn't going to print something that isn't true. If they would, it's easy to ask for a retraction.



Newspapers and News sources preach untrue stuff all the time, and some are worse than others.

And retractions do not happen very often if ever, so do you have any example of any "easy retraction"? as I say not.

They retract misspelled words or if they got the wrong name in some case, but they do not retract their lies.



Geruch said:


> A source told me that you was in a cult in Ca. Is that true? Or what that just hot air?



It depends on how one defines a "cult" since I attended the "Worldwide Church of God" as some people call that a cult before it fell apart and turned orthodox, but it was a $170 million dollar per year worldwide church which I do not see as a "cult", and I did attend around 1987 - 1993 in California and here in Maryland too, and I am still in contact with some of the break away groups.

Through my years I have done very much research into religions, so I have attended groups of many kinds, like Jehovah Witnesses and 7th Day Adventist, Methodist, and many other groups, and I still like all of the groups or Churches even though I have different beliefs in some ways.

And I see myself as a Hindu and Buddhist and Muslim and Atheist and Shaman and as a part of all religions of all kinds.

Alekum al salam.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I never had a mental illness and still do not.


Yeah, okay.   



> The anti-social behavior were act of civil disobedience which I am still very proud of doing, and it is anti-social because our social laws are immoral and debased and need to be fought. And calling it compulsive since I did the crime three times is a silly claim as like my campaigning is now three times so it can be called compulsive too under that same criteria.


Or, more likely, you were deemed anti-social because you apparently have a cold, calculating personality that serves only yourself at the cost of everyone else in your vicinity - including your own family.  And you were/are compulsive because regardless how many times you are shown the truth, you persist in believing your delusions, insisting that everyone else - especially the government - is corrupt and wrong.



> Mental illness is where the person is ill as in sickly and debilitating


I doubt anyone here will deny you are sick.  As far as being debilitated, consider your political career.  How many offices have you won, anywhere at any level?  Seems you are debilitated because you are a failure because you are a crackpot.

Maybe you should send Gov. Owe'Malley the details of your plan to expand MD's mental health services... then they can have enough room to board you until your final days.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Newspapers and News sources preach untrue stuff all the time, and some are worse than others.
> 
> And retractions do not happen very often if ever, so do you have any example of any "easy retraction"? as I say not.
> 
> They retract misspelled words or if they got the wrong name in some case, but they do not retract their lies.


Of course, I don't have a example of a retraction right in front of me.
You have no way of knowing how often a retraction occurs, you don't work for the newpaper.  

I do know if it wasn't true and you could prove it. You could have sued for slander. Which you didn't.





Geruch said:


> A source told me that you was in a cult in Ca. Is that true? Or what that just hot air?





VoteJP said:


> It depends on how one defines a "cult" since I attended the "Worldwide Church of God" as some people call that a cult before it fell apart and turned orthodox, but it was a $170 million dollar per year worldwide church which I do not see as a "cult", and I did attend around 1987 - 1993 in California and here in Maryland too, and I am still in contact with some of the break away groups.
> 
> Through my years I have done very much research into religions, so I have attended groups of many kinds, like Jehovah Witnesses and 7th Day Adventist, Methodist, and many other groups, and I still like all of the groups or Churches even though I have different beliefs in some ways.
> 
> And I see myself as a Hindu and Buddhist and Muslim and Atheist and Shaman and as a part of all religions of all kinds.
> 
> Alekum al salam.


 Thanks for confirming the information.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> I do know if it wasn't true and you could prove it. You could have sued for slander. Which you didn't.



It just does not work that way.

People at the Newspapers do like some people on this Forum do by just posting whatever slander they want and call it free speech and it is not subject to lawsuit.  

The Courts and the laws are only about stealing money, because the slander has to cause a financial loss and the Court will only order monetary damages and the "retraction" is not often worth all the effort against such persons.

But I submit that you are correct in that it does happen some times.



Geruch said:


> Thanks for confirming the information.



You are welcome, and I do try to be very open and honest and forthcoming.

This is a point I try to tell to my hecklers on these Boards that if they want info then I am usually happy to give out and tell most anything if one ask me about anything, and I say I often give more accurate and more interesting info then what my accusers try to throw at me.

Many of your postings have some malice in them too, but I see the website that you built to be rather well done as like a professional reporter might do.

Cheers.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> It just does not work that way.
> 
> People at the Newspapers do like some people on this Forum do by just posting whatever slander they want and call it free speech and it is not subject to lawsuit.The Courts and the laws are only about stealing money, because the slander has to cause a financial loss and the Court will only order monetary damages and the "retraction" is not often worth all the effort against such persons.
> 
> But I submit that you are correct in that it does happen some times.


The newspaper didn't get that information out of thin air. Someone had to have told them or they heard it in court. 
Reporters are sometimes sent to the court house, we all know that. It depends on how serious the case is.

You can think what you will, but I know different. That's all I have to say.



VoteJP said:


> You are welcome, and I do try to be very open and honest and forthcoming.
> 
> This is a point I try to tell to my hecklers on these Boards that if they want info then I am usually happy to give out and tell most anything if one ask me about anything, and I say I often give more accurate and more interesting info then what my accusers try to throw at me. Many of your postings have some malice in them too, but I see the website that you built to be rather well done as like a professional reporter might do.
> 
> Cheers


Only getting the facts out to the Maryland voters. 
What better way then use your own words with some proven facts.

Now as far as, "Worldwide Church of God" whether it's consider a cult or not. 
Haven't research it enough to make a inform opinion about it. 
From what I read so far, some say it was, some say it wasn't. 

But it does explain a lot about how you view religion. 
I do see some similarities to what you posted on the different forums.
Their beliefs are totally different then what I was taught in church.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> People at the Newspapers do like some people on this Forum do by just posting whatever slander they want and call it free speech and it is not subject to lawsuit.


As one website notes:

> Before beginning a libel or slander lawsuit, the plaintiff must determine whether or not the objectionable statement is true. No matter how damaging, insensitive, rude or inappropriate a statement may be, the plaintiff will lose if the statement is true.  _(Source.)_


That is why you had no recourse; the paper reported that you were deemed mentally dysfunctional and gave a damaging account of your criminal actions, but it was all true.  If it were not, you certainly could have and should have taken legal action.

Unfortunately for you, your reputation was already in the dirt so there was nothing the paper could say to make you appear more despicable than that which you had already done to yourself - much like the stuff people on the forums say about you today.




> The Courts and the laws are only about stealing money, because the slander has to cause a financial loss and the Court will only order monetary damages and the "retraction" is not often worth all the effort against such persons.


One would think with as much time as you have spent in court that you would know better.  Yet there you go taking 'liberty' with the truth again.  From the same site as above:

> Finally, the plaintiff often has to prove economic harm in order to recover on a defamation suit. Therefore, the plaintiff may need to be able to demonstrate a loss of business as a result of the defamation in order to establish a right to the recovery of money. However, some types of statements are so damaging that the plaintiff does not have to prove any economic loss. These statements tend to be those that accuse the plaintiff of sexual impropriety or criminal conduct.


Money is used as an indicator of and reward for damages because it is more solid than determining someone's 'feelings', not simply because the court likes taking money from people.  (Besides, it's not as if the court keeps the money it takes as you would like to believe.)


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> The newspaper didn't get that information out of thin air. Someone had to have told them or they heard it in court.
> Reporters are sometimes sent to the court house, we all know that. It depends on how serious the case is.
> 
> You can think what you will, but I know different. That's all I have to say.



Neither the Doctors nor the Court told me about any diagnosis, and in fact both the Doctors and the Court told me that I was not mentally ill and that I was competent to stand trial, and they could not deny my self representing myself as my own lawyer because it was determined that I was judged as competent. 

If the Newspaper got any info from the case record saying that - then both the Doctors and the Court would have had to lied to me and I say not.

My guess is that the Newspaper felt free to make such accusations solely on the fact that the Court did order me to undergo a psychological evaluation, but if I had been found to be mentally ill then the Court would have been required to give me a Court appointed attorney and I would have been sentenced to the State prison for the Mentally ill or even released to some form of supervision - but no.

My guess is that the reporter gave their opinion but it was not a true account.

And I feel that I must say - that even if I or any candidate did have a mental illness then that does not disqualify them from most jobs, and they can serve in most public offices, and mental illness is often treated in our society, and people with such conditions will often live long and productive lives because mental illness does not make the person evil or as an outcast.

Real evil is in the Child Support and Custody laws that steal children and extorts money and alienates parents.  



Geruch said:


> Only getting the facts out to the Maryland voters.
> What better way then use your own words with some proven facts.



That is cool.

And so long as you stick to the established truth then you will always be respected.



Geruch said:


> Now as far as, "Worldwide Church of God" whether it's consider a cult or not.
> Haven't research it enough to make a inform opinion about it.
> From what I read so far, some say it was, some say it wasn't.



It does not much matter any more as the great leader has long ago died 1986, and the Church split apart and the original Church turned orthodox which was the worse thing that could have happened to it.



Geruch said:


> But it does explain a lot about how you view religion.
> I do see some similarities to what you posted on the different forums.
> Their beliefs are totally different then what I was taught in church.



My own beliefs are not the same as that ruined Church, except in a few cases where the old Armstrong teachings are still in agreement with my new improved understandings.

One truly big doctrine that I kept is in this "The United States and Britain in Prophecy" link it HERE, and even though Armstrong wrote that book - the original message did not come from himself as he learned it from others, and I learned it from Armstrong.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Neither the Doctors nor the Court told me about any diagnosis, and in fact both the Doctors and the Court told me that I was not mentally ill and that I was competent to stand trial, and they could not deny my self representing myself as my own lawyer because it was determined that I was judged as competent.
> 
> If the Newspaper got any info from the case record saying that - then both the Doctors and the Court would have had to lied to me and I say not.
> 
> My guess is that the Newspaper felt free to make such accusations solely on the fact that the Court did order me to undergo a psychological evaluation, but if I had been found to be mentally ill then the Court would have been required to give me a Court appointed attorney and I would have been sentenced to the State prison for the Mentally ill or even released to some form of supervision - but no.
> 
> My guess is that the reporter gave their opinion but it was not a true account.
> 
> And I feel that I must say - that even if I or any candidate did have a mental illness then that does not disqualify them from most jobs, and they can serve in most public offices, and mental illness is often treated in our society, and people with such conditions will often live long and productive lives because mental illness does not make the person evil or as an outcast.
> 
> Real evil is in the Child Support and Custody laws that steal children and extorts money and alienates parents.


Someone having personality disorder with excessive/compulsive traits. 
Isn't severe enough condition to keep a person from standing trial. 

Having a mental disability may not disqualify a person from running for public office. But if not propertly treated it could hamper one performance to do the job propertly. It can put doubts in people minds whether or not this person could do the job. And whether or not the citizen's should vote for such a person. There's reason why we have mental hospital for those that have severe mental illness.  more on personality disorder




VoteJP said:


> It does not much matter any more as the great leader has long ago died 1986, and the Church split apart and the original Church turned orthodox which was the worse thing that could have happened to it.
> 
> My own beliefs are not the same as that ruined Church, except in a few cases where the old Armstrong teachings are still in agreement with my new improved understandings.
> 
> One truly big doctrine that I kept is in this "The United States and Britain in Prophecy" link it HERE, and even though Armstrong wrote that book - the original message did not come from himself as he learned it from others, and I learned it from Armstrong.


Like I said, I do see "some" similarities to what you posted on the different forums.

You yourself said, Your into different religions. You read about different religions. You embrace different religions. So your views are a bit mixed up. As to someone that only embrace one religion.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> Like I said, I do see "some" similarities to what you posted on the different forums.
> 
> You yourself said, Your into different religions. You read about different religions. You embrace different religions. So your views are a bit mixed up. As to someone that only embrace one religion.



I do have a thread in the "RELIGION" section, link it HERE, and anyone is welcome and invited to discuss religion there.

And I have no objection to explaining my own religious beliefs.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I do have a thread in the "RELIGION" section, link it HERE, and anyone is welcome and invited to discuss religion there. And I have no objection to explaining my own religious beliefs.


I'm not interested in discussing religion with you. 
When I read some of your posting on different forums, it turns my stomach.

If I have a question, I'll let you know.


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> Welfare as intended and long ago (no more) then welfare was meant to help poor families in their needs because the foundation of every society is in the security of the family structure of our poorest citizens, and as the poor and lower working class families deteriorate than that foundation will collapse and rightly so.
> 
> The more our society and its laws destroy families and undermines marriage and violates religion then chaos will come in due time.
> 
> 
> 
> The false claim of helping families is in that it helps single parent families, and it helps 2nd and 3rd families as the laws breaks up and destroys the original family unit and that is the one which counts the most.
> 
> 
> shortbus:




Sorry, but once more you need to do a bit more research... Welfare- which by the way is now known as Temporary Cash Assistance does not require that one of the partners be out of the home. TCA is available to intact familes IE: both the husband and wife, mother & boyfriend etc. 

When an intact family receives TCA, child support is not a requirement, Child support is only required when the mom and Dad are no longer together... meaning that they had seperated prior to applying for assistance. It was a single parent home already and child support had no part in that seperation.

When an intact family receives TCA both mom & dad are required to actively seek employment. There are exceptions in case of medical disability. In those cases, they may engage in re-training for another profession if their health allows.

Also it is now a requirement that any person applying for TCA be screened for any drug use/dependance. They are not refused TCA if they are drug users but are referred for treatment. 

so, you may want to do a bit more research on cash assistance as well. It appears your platform is based on outdated data.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> Sorry, but once more you need to do a bit more research... Welfare- which by the way is now known as Temporary Cash Assistance does not require that one of the partners be out of the home. TCA is available to intact families IE: both the husband and wife, mother & boyfriend etc.
> 
> When an intact family receives TCA, child support is not a requirement, Child support is only required when the mom and Dad are no longer together... meaning that they had separated prior to applying for assistance. It was a single parent home already and child support had no part in that separation.
> 
> When an intact family receives TCA both mom & dad are required to actively seek employment. There are exceptions in case of medical disability. In those cases, they may engage in re-training for another profession if their health allows.
> 
> Also it is now a requirement that any person applying for TCA be screened for any drug use/dependence. They are not refused TCA if they are drug users but are referred for treatment.
> 
> so, you may want to do a bit more research on cash assistance as well. It appears your platform is based on outdated data.



I do not say you are wrong, but it would help if you gave a link to such claims.

It is hard to believe that TCA will pay a custodial with a boyfriend (or gf), and the husband might be accepted if he is disabled but there is no link to verify such claims. 

I do not doubt that the State is trying to make improvements to the laws because as it is now the laws are destroying the social fabric of our State, and there is a big huge need for far more important changes that are not being done.

As to the law pushing BOTH parents into jobs is another ignorant act if we want to promote families and not breakup the families. We use to have the concept in the US 13th Amendment that there would not be any involuntary servitude and it is a new mistake to force poor parents into jobs and especially forcing parents into crud jobs. 

So I am all for improving the welfare laws to serve society and the needy and stop the selfish demands of the so called taxpayers.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> As to the law pushing BOTH parents into jobs is another ignorant act if we want to promote families and not breakup the families. We use to have the concept in the US 13th Amendment that there would not be any involuntary servitude and it is a new mistake to force poor parents into jobs and especially forcing parents into crud jobs.
> 
> So I am all for improving the welfare laws to serve society and the needy and stop the selfish demands of the so called taxpayers.


Oh so now you don't believe people should work for a living. 

I know both of your parents worked. How else could they have supported 12 children?

Welfare checks isn't sh*t when you can make a lot more then that by working.
It's the economy that force two parents to work, not the laws. Prices has risen over the years. 
If you haven't notice.

I would think you would want people to do everything they can to improve themselves. Guess Not.

VoteJP new slogan. "Why work, When you can get a welfare check."


----------



## daisycreek

Maryland Department of Human Resources: Temporary Cash Assistance


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I do not say you are wrong, but it would help if you gave a link to such claims.


   You have been provided countless links to all that previously, and you respond like a 2 year old sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing your nonsensical babbling.



> the law pushing BOTH parents into jobs


People might have to WORK for a living?!?!   



> forcing parents into crud jobs.


A loving parent (read, someone totally opposite to you) would scrub toilets overnight to ensure their kids were fed and safe.  You are self-centered and pompous, so it makes sense that you see most jobs as "too hard" or as "crud".



> stop the selfish demands of the so called taxpayers.


Those people are also your potential voters.  Given that, please continue demeaning and insulting them; I'm sure such treatment will come back to you in due time.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> Maryland Department of Human Resources: Temporary Cash Assistance



I would like to see those restrictions improved and not so rigid.

But none of that has any real baring on the overwhelming need to reform the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

That link does show another sad truth that the custodial parents are not really attacking their children's other separated parent as it is the law that requires the welfare families to turn in their children's parent over to the evil laws.

As Governor then I will do all I can to end that horrible violation of our fellow citizens as soon as I can.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> But none of that has any real baring on the overwhelming need to reform the evil Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> As Governor then I will do all I can to end that horrible violation of our fellow citizens as soon as I can.


I wouldn't call what you want to do reform. 
You want to do is wipe out child support, all together. 
If the other parent doesn't want to support their own child/ren. 
Then you say tough luck, go down to the welfare office, that's what their there for.

Your never become Governor, people are way smarter then you think.


----------



## maxima87

VoteJP said:


> I would like to see those restrictions improved and not so rigid.
> 
> But none of that has any real baring on the overwhelming need to reform the evil Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> That link does show another sad truth that the custodial parents are not really attacking their children's other separated parent as it is the law that requires the welfare families to turn in their children's parent over to the evil laws.
> 
> As Governor then I will do all I can to end that horrible violation of our fellow citizens as soon as I can.



But, the thing is...you will never be Governor.  It just won't happen.  You can talk all you want about all your non-sense...but it just doesn't matter.  You have a one track mind to get rid of child support...and that isn't going away.


----------



## Geruch

maxima87 said:


> But, the thing is...you will never be Governor.  It just won't happen.  You can talk all you want about all your non-sense...but it just doesn't matter.  You have a one track mind to get rid of child support...and that isn't going away.



When I think about it, There's a whole lot that a Governor of the state does and would have power over. 

Do Maryland voters really want someone that uneducated and self center? I would hope not.

Deadbeat, This is a descriptive term that refers to parents of either gender who have freely choosen not to be supportive parents or who do not pay their child support obligations. Deadbeat dad and deadbeat mom are commonly used by child support agencies to refer to men and women who have fathered and mothered a child but are unwilling to pay child support ordered by a family court or statutory agency.

That would make James P Cusick Sr. a deadbeat dad.


----------



## daisycreek

Geruch said:


> Welfare checks isn't sh*t when you can make a lot more then that by working.
> 
> VoteJP new slogan. "Why work, When you can get a welfare check."



Ahh but their needs are met to overflowing.. food stamps... housing assistance.... medical assistance, free cell phone, bus tickets, heating and electric assistance..


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> Ahh but their needs are met to overflowing.. food stamps... housing assistance.... medical assistance, free cell phone, bus tickets, heating and electric assistance..



That is just so very true, and I could not have said it much better myself.

Your words touch my heart dear Daisy.


----------



## Geruch

daisycreek said:


> Ahh but their needs are met to overflowing.. food stamps... housing assistance.... medical assistance, free cell phone, bus tickets, heating and electric assistance..


With JP it's all about getting a Free ride.  That's for sure.  

Yea, Welfare is always better, Then having both parents supporting their children. 

I think some people take advantage of the system.



VoteJP said:


> That is just so very true, and I could not have said it much better myself.
> 
> Your words touch my heart dear Daisy.


No doubt your smiling ear to ear too, Since you get all that help from the Government. 

Since you say you can't work. I bet you get all kinds of stuff for free. 
You didn't support your child, You can't work, What are you good for, Nothing.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> Yea, Welfare is always better, Then having both parents supporting their children.



That is not a correct comparison.

As in: Welfare is better than having Parenting Police that turn parents into criminals.

The ideals that use to be behind the Welfare system was to protect and preserve the poorest families because our society is built on the foundation of poor families and when the bottom falls out then we all fall.

The new parenting police with the evil Child Support extortion and the stealing of children under the Custody laws is a system that destroys families and undermines our social structure.

The two parents can work out their own parenting problems if we get the laws out of the parenting business.

We do need welfare programs that serve society and not to serve the State.

It is intended to be of the people and by the people and for the people, but instead it is being made as of the State and by the State and for the State. 



Geruch said:


> I think some people take advantage of the system.



The vast majority of people do not take any advantage as the system has very effective safe guards and restrictions. 

It is the incorrect thinking that twist your perception into that wrong belief.



Geruch said:


> Since you say you can't work. I bet you get all kinds of stuff for free.
> You didn't support your child, You can't work, What are you good for, Nothing.



When I am elected as Governor then all of that will change as I will then be on the payroll as an employee of the State.


----------



## Hawkeye

VoteJP said:


> That is not a correct comparison.
> 
> As in: Welfare is better than having Parenting Police that turn parents into criminals.
> 
> The ideals that use to be behind the Welfare system was to protect and preserve the poorest families because our society is built on the foundation of poor families and when the bottom falls out then we all fall.
> 
> The new parenting police with the evil Child Support extortion and the stealing of children under the Custody laws is a system that destroys families and undermines our social structure.
> 
> The two parents can work out their own parenting problems if we get the laws out of the parenting business.
> 
> We do need welfare programs that serve society and not to serve the State.
> 
> It is intended to be of the people and by the people and for the people, but instead it is being made as of the State and by the State and for the State.
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of people do not take any advantage as the system has very effective safe guards and restrictions.
> 
> It is the incorrect thinking that twist your perception into that wrong belief.
> 
> 
> 
> When I am elected as Governor then all of that will change as I will then be on the payroll as an employee of the State.



Dude, I'm new to this string but I have read a bit of it.  Are you really running for Governor?   If you are, I hope Otis the drunk is running too so I'll have someone to vote for.....I weep for the future


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Hawkeye said:


> Dude, I'm new to this string but I have read a bit of it.  Are you really running for Governor?



Yes I really am running for Governor of Maryland and the primary election is this coming Sept 14, 2010.

Link = Governor Candidate list: Maryland State Board of Elections


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> Our society is built on the foundation of poor families and when the bottom falls out then we all fall.



Wrong. Our society was built on the backs of people who did the work. People who respected their duty and obligations and didn't run away when the going got tough. People who didn't want a handout but instead wanted the oppurtunity to work for a better life.

You are the antithesis of that.

Your only accomplishment in life is to pollute the gene pool and make all of mankind weaker.

Welfare has done nothing but reward those who don't work and punish those who do. People like you are going to collapse this society.


----------



## hvp05

MMDad said:


> People like you are going to collapse this society.


He was partially right, although not in the way he intended.  I took his "we all fall" statement to mean him and his kind are determined to do as you said - drag us all down with them.  As they breed and spread their mental disease, they seem to be accomplishing just that.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That is not a correct comparison.
> 
> As in: Welfare is better than having Parenting Police that turn parents into criminals.
> 
> The ideals that use to be behind the Welfare system was to protect and preserve the poorest families because our society is built on the foundation of poor families and when the bottom falls out then we all fall.
> 
> The new parenting police with the evil Child Support extortion and the stealing of children under the Custody laws is a system that destroys families and undermines our social structure.
> 
> The two parents can work out their own parenting problems if we get the laws out of the parenting business.
> 
> We do need welfare programs that serve society and not to serve the State.
> 
> It is intended to be of the people and by the people and for the people, but instead it is being made as of the State and by the State and for the State.



NO, NO, NO,  For You, Having the other parent depend on Welfare is better then paying Child Support. 
That's what your really saying.

Yes, Welfare is there to help family's in need. It's was meant to be use as a Hand Up, not as a Free Hand Out.
And it's not to be use as a excuse for the other parent not to support their own children.

Welfare programs are already serving the Society. You of all people should know.
That's where you get your food stamps, energy assistance, rent assistance, etc.  
WTH, You complaining about?

Do you even realize how many people lost their jobs and homes because of the economy. 
Their the one's that have something to complain about. What are you going to do about it? 

I know but I'll give you one guess. 



VoteJP said:


> The vast majority of people do not take any advantage as the system has very effective safe guards and restrictions.
> 
> It is the incorrect thinking that twist your perception into that wrong belief.


My way of thinking is correct. As I said, "SOME" people take advantage of the system.
I didn't say, All or the Majority take advantage of the system. So stop twisting my words.

So what are the safe guards and restrictions? 



VoteJP said:


> When I am elected as Governor then all of that will change as I will then be on the payroll as an employee of the State.



I really feel sorry for you. You really believe your going to be the next Governor. Your going to be disappointed. 

Being the Governor is a lot of responsibility. I much rather have someone that has a higher education then a GED. 

Maryland Voters do have more important things that they care about. Which you don't seem to understand.

*I totally agree with MMDad *


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> Being the Governor is a lot of responsibility. I much rather have someone that has a higher education then a GED.



I would like it much better for some one else to do it too, but the fancy high education of others has left them as blind and misguided and immoral.

It would be wonderful if some other person would be Governor and put an end to the evils of the Child Support and Custody laws, but a-last I am the only one capable of performing that task.

The vast education of others has created a bunch of incompetent boobs. 



Geruch said:


> Maryland Voters do have more important things that they care about. Which you don't seem to understand.



There truly is nothing more important than the evil being done by the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.

Misguided people worry about their money and their greed while the ship is sinking underneath.

And just for the record - I do not want anyone to view myself as afraid of this boat sinking because I feel more like the prophet Jonah because I preach this message as also my campaign is done as my own duty while I have no objection to the ignorant boat sinking in its own rightful demise.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I would like it much better for some one else to do it too, but the fancy high education of others has left them as blind and misguided and immoral.
> 
> It would be wonderful if some other person would be Governor and put an end to the evils of the Child Support and Custody laws, *but a-last I am the only one capable of performing that task.*
> 
> The vast education of others has created a bunch of incompetent boobs.
> 
> 
> 
> There truly is nothing more important than the evil being done by the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> Misguided people worry about their money and their greed while the ship is sinking underneath.
> 
> And just for the record - I do not want anyone to view myself as afraid of this boat sinking because I feel more like the prophet Jonah because I preach this message as also my campaign is done as my own duty while I have no objection to the ignorant boat sinking in its own rightful demise.



  Do you seriously think you will be made governor? 

We will always have child support laws. It's sad we need them and sad that a parent must be forced to support the children they created.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> Do you seriously think you will be made governor?



I do not predict the future as that is outside of my abilities.

But I do "seriously think" that I am a legally registered candidate for MD Governor, link, and I am scheduled to be on the voting ballot for the coming election, and in that I am equal with all other candidates, and so I do have the possibility of winning the election. 

I have patience, and we will wait to see what shall happen and how it will turn out at that time.



LusbyMom said:


> We will always have child support laws.



You obviously like to predict the future, but I do not know how much of a prophetess you are.

I myself believe that all evils do come to a rightful end in their due time, and so I believe those evil Child Support and Custody laws are doomed to end regardless of what any of us do or believe.



LusbyMom said:


> It's sad we need them and sad that a parent must be forced to support the children they created.



The problem there is in the "force" as your kind believe in "force" and of violating other people and controlling others and that "force" is what makes your actions as evil.

Parenting does not need to be forced, and the force is the wrong.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I would like it much better for some one else to do it too, but the fancy high education of others has left them as blind and misguided and immoral.
> 
> It would be wonderful if some other person would be Governor and put an end to the evils of the Child Support and Custody laws, but a-last I am the only one capable of performing that task.
> 
> The vast education of others has created a bunch of incompetent boobs.


Now that show me and others, What your views are on getting a higher education. 

Your only plan is to do away with Child Support, so more parents will have to rely on Welfare. That's your twisted plan.

VoteJP, Your motto should be,

Why work, When we have welfare. 
Why pay child support, When we have welfare. 
Why should we better ourselves, When we have welfare.
Life is grand, When you can get all you need for FREE.



VoteJP said:


> There truly is nothing more important than the evil being done by the ignorant Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> Misguided people worry about their money and their greed while the ship is sinking underneath.
> 
> And just for the record - I do not want anyone to view myself as afraid of this boat sinking because I feel more like the prophet Jonah because I preach this message as also my campaign is done as my own duty while I have no objection to the ignorant boat sinking in its own rightful demise.


Of course "Some" people worry about money. When you have bills to pay and children to take care of.

I doubt if anyone see you as afraid. They may see you as, Stupid, Nuts, Crazy, Delusional, Dreamer, Arrogrant, Heartless, Self-Center, Dysfunctional, Out of Touch, Old Fool, Jack@ss, Deadbeat, Petty Criminal, just to name a few.

I'll predict the future. 
As I look  into my crystal ball, It shows me you will never get any further then you are right now.


----------



## PsyOps

LusbyMom said:


> Do you seriously think you will be made governor?



He can't be any worse than MOM.


----------



## PsyOps

VoteJP said:


> The problem there is in the "force" as your kind believe in "force" and of violating other people and controlling others and that "force" is what makes your actions as evil.
> 
> Parenting does not need to be forced, and the force is the wrong.



Apparently some people do need to be forced to support their child.  Who forced you to have that child?  Evil is shunning your responsibilities to a helpless child.  It was not the fault that this child was brought into the world, yet you want to punish that child further by refusing to provide it's needs after forcing that child into this world.

A lot of force going on and it's the most innocent (our children) that end up paying the price for irresponsible parents.


----------



## Star_Rider

VoteJP said:


> I myself believe that all evils do come to a rightful end in their due time, and so I believe those evil Child Support and Custody laws are doomed to end regardless of what any of us do or believe.


The only "evil" thing I've read on this post is the evil of a "parent" who refuses to take responsibility for the child they brought into this world. The Child Support and Custody laws should never be needed, a parent shouldn't need a law to take care of their child. 

The only reason we have such laws is because of "parents" like you who do not willingly take their responsibility. So that means you and others like you are also responsible for the creation of this thing you hate. Pretty ironic huh.

BTW, I put parent in quotes because you are obviously only a parent in the loosest definition of the term. From what you've posted you appear to be nothing more than a sperm donor.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I do not predict the future as that is outside of my abilities.
> 
> But I do "seriously think" that I am a legally registered candidate for MD Governor, link, and I am scheduled to be on the voting ballot for the coming election, and in that I am equal with all other candidates, and so I do have the possibility of winning the election.
> 
> I have patience, and we will wait to see what shall happen and how it will turn out at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously like to predict the future, but I do not know how much of a prophetess you are.
> 
> I myself believe that all evils do come to a rightful end in their due time, and so I believe those evil Child Support and Custody laws are doomed to end regardless of what any of us do or believe.
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem there is in the "force"* as your kind believe in "force" and of violating other people and controlling others and that "force" is what makes your actions as evil.
> 
> *Parenting does not need to be forced, and the force is the wrong.*



I will make sure I vote! 

Parenting shouldn't have to be forced.. Unfortunately their are parents who don't and won't parent on their own.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I do not predict the future as that is outside of my abilities.


But lying and regularly contradicting yourself are well within your abilities; you couldn't be a pseudo-politician without them.  Here are the most recent times you have predicted your future:





VoteJP said:


> When I am elected as Governor...





VoteJP said:


> As Governor then I will do...


Not "If I am elected" but "when", and not "I might do" but "I will do".  You should be honest with yourself and plan your concession post now.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



PsyOps said:


> Apparently some people do need to be forced to support their child.  Who forced you to have that child?  Evil is shunning your responsibilities to a helpless child.  It was not the fault that this child was brought into the world, yet you want to punish that child further by refusing to provide it's needs after forcing that child into this world.
> 
> A lot of force going on and it's the most innocent (our children) that end up paying the price for irresponsible parents.



Truth has got to be equated with reality and NOT with people's opinions.

As in there are no helpless children around because the children have masses of people running around to cater at their every need.

Truth as in reality instead of imaginary opinions.

The evil Child Support and Custody laws are not preventing the punishment of children and the children are not paying any price in that regard except to have one of their parents legally alienated.

Truth has got to be equated with reality and NOT with people's opinions.

There are no children living homeless, no children going hungry or naked, not even the poorest of poor children where the State keeps the Child Support when it does get paid.

Truth as in reality instead of imaginary opinions.

The lies and slanders of the Child Support and Custody laws are the true thing that hurts children as the laws destroy families.

If you want to help children then stop promoting the lies and stop the affront to the children's separated parents.

The ONLY only way any child is doing without is by the neglect or the abuse done by the custodial because it can not happen otherwise.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Star_Rider said:


> The only reason we have such laws is because of "parents" like you who do not willingly take their responsibility. So that means you and others like you are also responsible for the creation of this thing you hate. Pretty ironic huh.



I do know that many if not most people are determined to believe that way, but it is NOT true and it is not correct.

The law came before any problem and the law is NOT based on the problem but on some other perverted ideals.

This is specifically told by the high Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland in the case of three (3) fathers verses the Child Support enforcement office, and in that precedent setting Court decision it states that the Child Support is derived from the old English Blackstone law of the year 1765-69, see page 14 in that MD Court ruling linked HERE.

And to see the actual Blackstone commentary in full text of book 1, chapter 16, linked HERE.

And Blackstone claims throughout his doctrine that he is following some old Roman laws.

Therefore the evil Child Support and Custody laws of Maryland as of the USA are NOT based on any real problem, and it is all based on the dictates of old laws handed down from a time when people owned slaves and the law had debtor's prisons and when Women were not equal with Men.

The idea that we NEED the evil family destructive Child Support and Custody laws is not true and it is just not correct.


----------



## vraiblonde

Don't listen to them, JPC.  Think positive and knock MOM off his throne!


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> That is just so very true, and I could not have said it much better myself.
> 
> Your words touch my heart dear Daisy.



sooo when you do away with the "evil child support", and there will be no monies being re-imbursed for the monies dished out ie: TCA, rent assistance, etc. Where do you plan to find the funding for these programs? 
State workers have received no raises for 3 years now plus salary reductions and furloughs...  should the state employees just apply for assistance? Your plan seems like it would drain the budget. What do you plan to do about state employee salaries? Lift the reduction? go backwards and give them their step increases?


----------



## hvp05

daisycreek said:


> What do you plan to do...


   He has no idea about that stuff.      He'll use all four years to dismantle CS then leave the mess left behind for someone else.  (Figuring he lasts four years and is not ejected from office for dereliction of duty regarding the multitude of other issues a governor is tasked with.)


----------



## daisycreek

well not that he will get the opportunity, but I've tried on many occasions to inform the candidate that child support is a federal mandate.


----------



## Geruch

daisycreek said:


> well not that he will get the opportunity, but I've tried on many occasions to inform the candidate that child support is a federal mandate.


At least you tried.

I'm close to JP age, I been around the block a few times. I seen what
happens when people break up or they get a divorce. It's not pretty.

Even in my own family, There's fathers that don't even spend time with their children. Most didn't pay child support until they were taken to court. Years went by and  they never paid a dime. Those few that didn't receive child support end up having to apply for everything down at the local welfare department. 

JP wants only one parent supporting the children, if and when someone split's up or divorce. I say, Why should it all be put on one parent. When it takes two to make a baby. Both parents are supporting the children when their together. I say, Why can't they both support their own children when they split up. 

Back in the days, There were a lot of single parents getting a welfare check. The government was doing what the absent parent should of been doing. Now things have change a bit. Now it's Welfare to Work, It's a way for single parents to better themselves and their children lives. That's a good thing.

To believe that the absent parent will support their child voluntarily, if there was no child support law. Is unrealistic.

I also want to point out this, 





> The Federal Mandate
> 
> In 1974, Congress passed the Family Support Act (FSA), Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, requiring states receiving AFDC funds to establish and enforce child support obligations. Every state receiving AFDC funds had to establish a child support enforcement agency popularly known as a "IV-D Agency" that was required to meet standards promulgated by the newly established Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. The primary goal of the FSA was to reduce the federal cost of the AFDC program by sharpening enforcement of support obligations.
> 
> 
> As state in Marion Dobbs, et al., Enforcing Child and Spousal Support § 4.04 (1995), AFDC payments are in a direct sense child support paid by the taxpayer; eligibility for AFDC requires a dependent child and an absent parent.



Federal Mandate


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> I do know that many if not most people are determined to believe that way, but it is NOT true and it is not correct.



Yes it is.



VoteJP said:


> The law came before any problem and the law is NOT based on the problem but on some other perverted ideals.



No it's not.



VoteJP said:


> And Blackstone claims throughout his doctrine that he is following some old Roman laws.
> 
> Therefore the evil Child Support and Custody laws of Maryland as of the USA are NOT based on any real problem, and it is all based on the dictates of old laws handed down from a time when people owned slaves and the law had debtor's prisons and when Women were not equal with Men.



Ok, so you're saying that the Child Support Laws are based on old laws handed down from a time when people owned slaves and women were second to men, etc... _Instead of_ being based on real problems.


This logic this leads me to ask the following: If child support and custody laws are not based on real things, ( i.e. they're based on fake things ) then what was it that during those olden days that did not exist (i.e. were fake)?

Parenthood?
Parents that took off?
Rome?

Or are the laws invalid simply because they existed in a time when there was slavery, debtor's prisons and when women were subservient to men?


Murder and theft laws were passed down from those same olden days of yore, are they not? Should we legalize killin' and stealin' simply because the laws against these things were handed down from older, less enlightened cultures?




VoteJP said:


> The idea that we NEED the evil family destructive Child Support and Custody laws is not true and it is just not correct.



Yes it is.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> sooo when you do away with the "evil child support", and there will be no monies being re-imbursed for the monies dished out ie: TCA, rent assistance, etc. Where do you plan to find the funding for these programs?
> State workers have received no raises for 3 years now plus salary reductions and furloughs...  should the state employees just apply for assistance? Your plan seems like it would drain the budget. What do you plan to do about state employee salaries? Lift the reduction? go backwards and give them their step increases?



Hi, 

we can count on having more money after I fire all of the parenting police, as in firing all the Child Support officers, and closing the State's Attorney Child Support division, and fire the Court-masters as not needed, and grant instant release of all parents from any jail State-wide and that will give us more revenue too.

As the corrected saying goes: "Fire Peter to pay Paul."


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> ... but I've tried on many occasions to inform the candidate that child support is a federal mandate.



We do not live in a Dictatorship and not in an Empire either, so a Federal mandate does have its limitations, and we can absorb any sanctions if we must.

And as Governor then I will instruct our MD representatives on the Federal level to deal with the dispute in a favorable way.

It will need to be worked out, but working political stuff out is the way that the game is played and so we shall do that.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Toxick said:


> Ok, so you're saying that the Child Support Laws are based on old laws handed down from a time when people owned slaves and women were second to men, etc... _Instead of_ being based on real problems.
> 
> This logic this leads me to ask the following: If child support and custody laws are not based on real things, ( i.e. they're based on fake things ) then what was it that during those olden days that did not exist (i.e. were fake)?
> 
> Parenthood?
> Parents that took off?
> Rome?
> 
> Or are the laws invalid simply because they existed in a time when there was slavery, debtor's prisons and when women were subservient to men?
> 
> Murder and theft laws were passed down from those same olden days of yore, are they not? Should we legalize killin' and stealin' simply because the laws against these things were handed down from older, less enlightened cultures?



I am not saying it was unreal or fake way back then - no, I am saying the thieving Child Support and Custody laws are based on fake claims now and today.

There are no hungry or homeless children in the entire USA - not one.

And now TODAY if any child does goes hungry or homeless or without medical needs or school or without any need then it is ONLY because of the neglect or incompetence or the abuse by the custodial.

What we have brought into this future from the old past is now we have Debtor's prisons only for parents and parenting, and we have laws that enslave the parents to pay the c/s thievery, and the mothers are again treated as chattel and as subordinates.

That is the ignorant brutality that was drug-up from the past.


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> Hi,
> we can count on having more money after I fire all of the parenting police,
> as in firing all the Child Support officers, and closing the State's Attorney Child Support division, and fire the Court-masters as not needed, and grant instant release of all parents from any jail State-wide and that will give us more revenue too.
> 
> As the corrected saying goes: "Fire Peter to pay Paul."



Wow, you really are delusional... just how big do you think the salaries of "the parenting police" are????
Even now with salary reductions, no raises, and furlough days? 

And once again, I have informed you that the judges have new policies regarding the incarceration of NCP's,  One must be proven to have had the ability to pay and did not. Yet you are so caught up in your own agenda that you can not see facts....


----------



## Star_Rider

VoteJP said:


> There are no hungry or homeless children in the entire USA - not one.


According to who???, not reality. Here is a link for you.

You have a right to NOT have children. IF you choose to give up this right you then have a legal, moral, and ethical responsibility to provide for that child. If you choose to not accept your responsibility you are a criminal and shouldn't be surprised if you are treated as such.

After over 1200 post you still live in denial. That implies that you will probably never willingly accept your responsibility to provide for the life you played a part in creating. That is unfortunate

Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Since I do not want to be thought of as insane I will not continue with this discussion. I only pray that one day you understand.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> Wow, you really are delusional...



I wish each of you all would learn the meaning of such words as that.

Your own beliefs and your opinions are not the basis of illusion-ment.



daisycreek said:


> just how big do you think the salaries of "the parenting police" are????
> Even now with salary reductions, no raises, and furlough days?



I understand the thieves get paid fairly well, as they get bonuses and perks for the money they steal and for the more parents they pillage and plunder.

And the salary levels are secondary to the large number of parenting police, as the more we fire then the more expenditures we save.



daisycreek said:


> And once again, I have informed you that the judges have new policies regarding the incarceration of NCP's,  One must be proven to have had the ability to pay and did not. Yet you are so caught up in your own agenda that you can not see facts....



You preach that as if it is some great enlightenment as if the thievery is ennobled and it surely is not.

So it is now official that the law will only steal from the parents which do have some thing to steal.

And if the parents are completely penniless then the gracious law will now stop putting the completely dead-broke parents in jail.

Do not expect me to ever cheer on your dirty pack of thieves.

The truth before is the same now - that ONLY dead-broke parents go to jail, and the law is nothing but dirty thieves that keep stealing and stealing until the parents are dead-broke.

The custodial that receives Child Support is living off of the dirtiest money on the planet earth.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Star_Rider said:


> According to who???, not reality. Here is a link for you.
> 
> You have a right to NOT have children. IF you choose to give up this right you then have a legal, moral, and ethical responsibility to provide for that child. If you choose to not accept your responsibility you are a criminal and shouldn't be surprised if you are treated as such.



Your link says that the people are being fed - not hungry as they are eating.

It talks about insecure food because they want people to send them more money and that is fine, but the food is being delivered free to the people.

All people, and particularly poor parents, do have every right to have all the children they chose or happen to be blessed with, and you nor the law has any right to say otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with being fruitful and multiplying no matter what the parenting police claim and no matter what any man made law declares.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> we can count on having more money after I fire all of the parenting police, as in firing all the Child Support officers, and closing the State's Attorney Child Support division, and fire the Court-masters as not needed, and grant instant release of all parents from any jail State-wide and that will give us more revenue too.


Can you accurately detail "more money"/"more revenue"?  Of course you can't because you don't know how much money is in play.

Further, the amount you are talking about 'saving' is a fixed amount in the budget versus the amount that will be outgoing towards social services which will increase in the coming years.  Yet somehow you think the state will be okay financially... more kooky Liberal math for everyone to enjoy.




VoteJP said:


> we can absorb any sanctions if we must.


You have no shame in dumping all sorts of things on the taxpayers' backs... while insulting those working folks in the process.  I guess it's pretty easy to do when one is a career leech such as yourself.



> working political stuff out is the way that the game is played and so we shall do that.


Not only are you not a real politician, you can't even play one on the Internet.


----------



## Geruch

Know The Truth



> Originally Posted by VoteJP/ James P. Cusick Sr.
> 
> *It truly is the child's place to seek after a healthy relationship* with their parents even if the parent is divorced and separated. And it is the job of custody to facilitate and promote a healthy relationship with the separated parent.
> In JP eyes, No responsibility should fall on the Non-custodial / separated parent.



Here's a post by James P. Cusick Sr. also known as Booky.



> Originally Posted by VoteJP/ James P. Cusick Sr.
> 
> I say that was a really smart observation that "wypy" had that*
> I try to get people angry as my way of CONTROLLING others*
> and I say you are correct in this case. That is not my only means of extending control but it is one way.
> 
> And *claiming that controlling other people is always wrong or unhealthy is just unrealistic and untrue.*
> We live in a world where everything and everyone is under many forms of control and that is reality.
> Booky / VoteJP / James P. Cusick Sr.


Post were he thinks being homeless is fun.


> Originally Posted by VoteJP/ James P. Cusick Sr.
> 
> *Being homeless is a fun and interesting and exciting thing to do.* The greatest problem is in dealing with the self-righteous population and the constant harassments by the police. The richer people living in their luxuries really miss-out on a lot of life by being jailed in their own housing.
> Being homeless is fun





> Originally Posted by VoteJP/ James P. Cusick Sr.
> 
> I must admit that *I never have liked the idea of victim statements or of victim's right* because our US "Bill of Rights" is not designed that way, and governments do not work that way either.
> Against victims giving a impact statment.





> Originally Posted by VoteJP/ James P. Cusick Sr.
> 
> If it were myself then I would not be satisfied with the 95k$, and since the law will not prosecute that criminal Cop then the parent has every right to take the law into his own hands and strike back at his own convenience.
> 
> *If it was me then I would want to kill the Cop, and if I were him than that is what I would do in such a case.*
> This is why we have a 2nd Amendment - so citizens can defend ourselves against gov criminals.
> Sheriffs' dept pays child support





> Originally Posted by VoteJP/ James P. Cusick Sr.
> 
> So I say *the Dad is fully justified to retaliate and kill them all *if he can figure out a way to get it done. That parent has been legally violated and tortured and he has no legal recourse to seek justice, and so it is his right to employ the 2nd Amendment in this case.
> Sheriffs' dept pays child support



I don't think these are signs of a normal or reasonable person.


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> _I wish each of you all would learn the meaning of such words as that._
> delusional
> 
> 
> Main Entry: de·lu·sion
> Pronunciation: \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
> Date: 15th century
> 1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
> 2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
> [/COLOR]
> 
> That pretty much covers your platform ^
> 
> 
> _I understand the thieves get paid fairly well, as they get bonuses and perks for the money they steal and for the more parents they pillage and plunder._



Sorry... No bonuses... no perks and  32K  is not exactly living large in Maryland


----------



## Geruch

Mr. Cusick, who *was diagnosed during a psychiatric evaluation as having a personality disorder with excessive/compulsive traits,* requested a jury trial but had no attorney. He denied having any mental illness, but when asked by Judge Lerner when he would stop vandalizing buildings, he did not give an answer after pondering the question for several seconds.

Ms. Prigge requested Mr. Cusick be incarcerated, saying there's no indication his antisocial behavior will cease. She speculated his dislike of child support laws stems from the time he spent in jail in 1995 for failure to pay support. "I don't think he' s going to stop. He's not getting the message," she said.
Someone brought the article from the newspaper. So who's do you think is telling the truth, The Experts and the Newspaper or JPeeeeeee



> Originally Posted by VoteJP / James P. Cusick Sr.
> 
> It was my intention to provoke my enemies, and the Newspaper did me far more credit than harm in its words.
> 
> Herald Mail Forums


In 1974, Congress passed the Family Support Act (FSA), Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, requiring states receiving AFDC funds to establish and enforce child support obligations. Every state receiving AFDC funds had to establish a child support enforcement agency popularly known as a "IV-D Agency" that was required to meet standards promulgated by the newly established Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. The primary goal of the FSA was to reduce the federal cost of the AFDC program by sharpening enforcement of support obligations.
Federal Mandate

*AFDC payments are in a direct sense child support paid by the taxpayer; *
eligibility for AFDC requires a dependent child and an absent parent. 
Law #17

This is a clear indication of where all that money is coming from. It's coming from the Taxpayers. Since the non-custodial parent paying child support. That free's up money that can go to other needed programs. Since now in order to receive a welfare check, one must actively look for a job. Which I think that's a good thing. Since you can make more by working, then sitting on your buns. And still get help with food stamps if needed. 

It's a way to better yourself and your children lives.


----------



## Geruch

*Grandiose:* A person with this type of delusional disorder has an 
*over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity.* 

The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery. 

Mental Health -Delusional Disorder

Grandiose seems to fit JP to a T.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> *Grandiose:* A person with this type of delusional disorder has an
> *over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity.*
> 
> The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.
> 
> Mental Health -Delusional Disorder
> 
> Grandiose seems to fit JP to a T.



It really is far more grandiose and delusional to present your self as some Psychiatrist giving a medical diagnosis online, rather than me being a legally registered candidate for Governor with the platform intention of reforming the Child Support and Custody laws.

Mine is a realist and a real-life circumstance and ongoing campaign supported through the State election process.

It is okay to view a politician and even more-so a wanna-be politician as "grandiose" since that is a part of the process.

After I win the election then I will need to become more humble as I utterly destroy the injustices of the Child Support and Custody laws.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> Sorry... No bonuses... no perks and  32K  is not exactly living large in Maryland



I figure at first the thieves might need to be replaced by some moral and decent people to shut down the ignorant system.

But even if the evil persons of the parenting police are volunteers - doing their dirty work for free, then they will still be fired and or removed from their thievery - under the rule of my administration.


----------



## Toxick

VoteJP said:


> There are no hungry or homeless children in the entire USA - not one.





And why do you suppose this is Mr. Candidate?








Edit:
You know what: I just remembered that no matter what I say, it's not going to matter. Feel free to ignore this post, as you're going to ignore any debate points I come up with, anyway. I am not going to argue further.


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> I figure at first the thieves might need to be replaced by some moral and decent people to shut down the ignorant system.
> 
> But even if the evil persons of the parenting police are volunteers - doing their dirty work for free, then they will still be fired and or removed from their thievery - under the rule of my administration.



Ok, when you fire me.. I shall take up residence at the mansion with you and eat your groceries.. or just have my  mobile home placed on the lawn there and plug the electric service cord into the mansion, since I have been paid "fairly well" and won't qualify for any assistance. 

Oh, I do have degenerative disc disease and 3 discs that are fused...maybe after you fire me, you could show me how to collect some of those disabilty checks...


----------



## hvp05

daisycreek said:


> Ok, when you fire me..


YOU are one of the evil, dirty thieves who work for the Evil Commission of Dirty Thieves, a.k.a. CS Enforcement?   

Jimmy will be coming for you now.  If you want to protest getting fired, you can spraypaint his new house; I hear such activity is fun and relaxing.  Might I suggest using phrases like "Deadbeat lives here" and "Child Support reform crackpot inside".


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> Ok, when you fire me.. I shall take up residence at the mansion with you and eat your groceries.. or just have my  mobile home placed on the lawn there and plug the electric service cord into the mansion, since I have been paid "fairly well" and won't qualify for any assistance.
> 
> Oh, I do have degenerative disc disease and 3 discs that are fused...maybe after you fire me, you could show me how to collect some of those disabilty checks...



If one does work for the Devil (for evil purposes) - then they do get back the same as due to the Devil.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." 
KJV. Link = Galations 6:7


----------



## Geruch

JP heard you was suppose to have a hot date on Thursday at the Library. 
So how did it go, Did she show up?


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> JP heard you was suppose to have a hot date on Thursday at the Library.
> So how did it go, Did she show up?



I didn't think they allowed farm animals inside the library.  lol.


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> If one does work for the Devil (for evil purposes) - then they do get back the same as due to the Devil.
> 
> "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
> KJV. Link = Galations 6:7



 I have nothing to fear, as I have helped many children and their parents. I work to have a home, groceries, clothing etc, notfor evil purposes. 

Judge not ..lest ye be judged    Mathew 7:1


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> JP heard you was suppose to have a hot date on Thursday at the Library.
> So how did it go, Did she show up?



I did not know that you had some thing to do with that - and that is an interesting twist too.

But yes I am a single Man and I do go out on dates when possible, and it does not matter to me if the Lady does not show up or if she has any sort of reservations.

And as Governor then I will need a wife (or GF) to be first Lady of State.

If you would like to meet me and discuss things then we might be able to work something out too.

I am not anonymous nor incognito and I have contact with people often.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> I have nothing to fear, as I have helped many children and their parents. I work to have a home, groceries, clothing etc, not for evil purposes.



That is great.

And I do believe you.

That saying applies to everyone including myself and I am not in fear either as I do not work for evil purposes.



daisycreek said:


> Judge not ..lest ye be judged    Mathew 7:1



That is a very misunderstood text and it does need some explaining.

Jesus also said:
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 
John 7:24, click it HERE.

The thing about judging is that when one does judge then that same judgment is applied to our self too at the same time.

What I discovered in human criminal Courts is that only the guilty do not want judgment, while those not-guilty are eager to have trial and jury and a verdict, and that is because guilt makes one afraid while innocence makes one bold.

So in you text of "Judge not ..." then Jesus is saying that if we do want to be right and to do right then we must judge rightfully and not just by appearances.

If one does not judge then they will miss out on their own judgments (lest ye be not judged), and a sincere person wanting to do right will be bold in making right judgments.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> I did not know that you had some thing to do with that - and that is an interesting twist too.
> 
> But yes I am a single Man and I do go out on dates when possible, and it does not matter to me if the Lady does not show up or if she has any sort of reservations.
> 
> And as Governor then I will need a wife (or GF) to be first Lady of State.
> 
> If you would like to meet me and discuss things then we might be able to work something out too.
> 
> I am not anonymous nor incognito and I have contact with people often.


But yes I am a single Man and I do go out on dates when possible   Yeah,right!  I'll bet you do.  lol.  That was funny.

And as Governor then I will need a wife (or GF) to be first Lady of State.

Good luck with that!


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I did not know that you had some thing to do with that - and that is an interesting twist too.


That's because I didn't have anything to do with it.  A little birdie told me about it.


VoteJP said:


> If you would like to meet me and discuss things then we might be able to work something out too.


There's no reason for me to meet you. It would be a waste of my time. We have nothing to discuss.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Highlander said:


> But yes I am a single Man and I do go out on dates when possible   Yeah,right!  I'll bet you do.  lol.  That was funny.
> 
> And as Governor then I will need a wife (or GF) to be first Lady of State.
> 
> Good luck with that!



Wow, one of the nastiest posters on this board has given me some positive affirmations and I am touched by it.

It goes to show that there is hope for anyone in this world - or at least on this board.


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> That's because I didn't have anything to do with it.  A little birdie told me about it.
> 
> There's no reason for me to meet you. It would be a waste of my time. We have nothing to discuss.



HEHEHE. I just found a private message from the same birdie.  That's halarious.  He's probably still sitting in the library parking lot waiting for her to show up. lol.


----------



## Geruch

Highlander said:


> HEHEHE. I just found a private message from the same birdie.  That's halarious.  He's probably still sitting in the library parking lot waiting for her to show up. lol.


I wouldn't doubt it. 

Library, hummm, Isn't that's where you use to access the internet. 
I read he got himself a computer, I wonder if he really did. 
He could still be at the Library. Well, Who cares, really. He's still a loser.

Wonder if the person brought a doggie bag for him. 
I doubt if to many women would put up with someone like him. 
They would have to be deaf, blind and dumb. Then he may have a chance.

So, How was your 4th of July?

I cooked out, put a few steaks on the grill. I got on sale. Love my meat. 
I had some friends over. Watch the fireworks, It was all good.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> JP heard you was suppose to have a hot date on Thursday at the Library.


Now I feel so sad and rejected since she left me, and I had already fallen in-love with her.

She could have just visited as friends with no strings attached as I am a nice guy.

You too can come and visit me, to see the arch-enemy in person.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> Now I feel so sad and rejected since she left me, and I had already fallen in-love with her.
> 
> She could have just visited as friends with no strings attached as I am a nice guy.
> 
> You too can come and visit me, to see the arch-enemy in person.



Can I come visit you Jimmy?  You have so much to offer, I would consider being gay just for you.  Oh,  I don't kiss on the first date.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Now I feel so sad and rejected since she left me, and I had already fallen in-love with her.
> She could have just visited as friends with no strings attached as I am a nice guy.
> You too can come and visit me, to see the arch-enemy in person.


If you fallen in love with someone you only chatted with online. 
I say, You have a serious problem that you need to work on.
Maybe something came up at the last min. Who knows. Not my problem.
Meeting strangers off-line is not my thing nor is it a safe thing to do. IMO

Well I don't consider you a enemy. I don't think there was ever a time when I did consider a person a enemy. 
I have people I dislike but I don't consider them enemies either. I just stay away from people that I dislike.

But know this, I do take voting very seriously. Your not the type of person I would vote for. And your not the type of person I would like for a friend or otherwise. Your against just about everything that I was taught by my parents. 

We are from two different worlds.

Your a taker, I'm a giver. 
My children came first. Your child came last.
I work hard to support my children. You didn't. 
You like to socialize with known criminals, I don't. 
Your all about helping yourself. I'm all about helping others. 
Your religion is whatever sound good. My comes from the Holy Bible.


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> If you fallen in love with someone you only chatted with online.
> I say, You have a serious problem that you need to work on.
> Maybe something came up at the last min. Who knows. Not my problem.
> Meeting strangers off-line is not my thing nor is it a safe thing to do. IMO
> 
> Well I don't consider you a enemy. I don't think there was ever a time when I did consider a person a enemy.
> I have people I dislike but I don't consider them enemies either. I just stay away from people that I dislike.
> 
> But know this, I do take voting very seriously. Your not the type of person I would vote for. And your not the type of person I would like for a friend or otherwise. Your against just about everything that I was taught by my parents.
> 
> We are from two different worlds.
> 
> Your a taker, I'm a giver.
> My children came first. Your child came last.
> I work hard to support my children. You didn't.
> You like to socialize with known criminals, I don't.
> Your all about helping yourself. I'm all about helping others.
> Your religion is whatever sound good. My comes from the Holy Bible.



This is why someone like you Geruck have respect of others and why Dipsh*t JPC is and will always be an idiot.  He has been in trouble with the law numerous times.  He was diagnosed with mental disorders (that have apparently never been addressed).  He is totally delusional and can't grasp reality.  It's a total waste of time to try reason with cuSICK.  He is in a different world.  A world I don't care to visit.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Highlander said:


> Can I come visit you Jimmy?  You have so much to offer, I would consider being gay just for you.  Oh,  I don't kiss on the first date.



Hell no, I am not having any homosexual stuff in my house.

You bring your nasty self to my house and you do not have any real business then I will give you some 12 gauge pellets in your gut. 

If the Ladies want to come by just to visit then that would be fine.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> You bring your nasty self to my house and you do not have any real business then I will give you some 12 gauge pellets in your gut.



Oh Really?



> Plus you asked if I could hold a gun and I use to have guns many years ago but my hands are now messed up and it would be hard to hold a gun and even harder to fire a weapon. But I do not believe in me doing violence anymore, and if I did then I certainly would not concider it on such a small scale as that. QuickDraw Cusick


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



thunderclapp said:


> Oh Really?



You do demonstrate a defect in using old and outdated references because times and circumstances do change.

I myself believe in changing and improving as that is a fitting part of growth and maturity.

So I found out that I can indeed pull a trigger using my middle finger since that one is not affected on my right hand by the Duputren Contractures.

And it surely would be an ironic circumstance to shoot down a homosexual affront by the "Highlander" with my middle finger.  

And I still see myself as a non violent person in the regard as Abe Lincoln was a non violent person that still had to participate in huge violence.

A gun can be used for self defense or for rightful actions and as the US 2nd Amendment points out - that citizens being armed is productive to a healthy State.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> You do demonstrate a defect in using old and outdated references because times and circumstances do change.
> 
> I myself believe in changing and improving as that is a fitting part of growth and maturity.
> 
> So I found out that I can indeed pull a trigger using my middle finger since that one is not affected on my right hand by the Duputren Contractures.
> 
> And it surely would be an ironic circumstance to shoot down a homosexual affront by the "Highlander" with my middle finger.
> 
> And I still see myself as a non violent person in the regard as Abe Lincoln was a non violent person that still had to participate in huge violence.
> 
> A gun can be used for self defense or for rightful actions and as the US 2nd Amendment points out - that citizens being armed is productive to a healthy State.



Looks like I struck a nerve with you JPC.  Do you have some bad memories from your days in jail?   lol.  I was definitely being sarcastic and am not a homo.  Come on, be honest.  When was the last time you had a lady at your home, other than relatives, social workers or police officers?


----------



## hvp05

Highlander said:


> Looks like I struck a nerve with you JPC.  Do you have some bad memories from your days in jail?


I think you were crowding in on his trying to get with Geruch...





VoteJP to Geruch said:


> I say if you and I had a few bottles of champaign then we could discuss this more thoroughly and with better results.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> What I am saying is for me to speak for the State (Caesar) and let the parents take care of their own business and of their own children.


The state already does that... unless the parents ask for assistance.  It would be amusing in a way to watch how upset people would get at you if they sought a custody/CS settlement but could not because you had shut down the system.


----------



## Geruch

Highlander said:


> Can I come visit you Jimmy?  You have so much to offer, I would consider being gay just for you.  Oh,  I don't kiss on the first date.


WOW, Highlander was clearly joking around.  I thought it was funny. 


VoteJP said:


> Hell no, I am not having any homosexual stuff in my house.
> 
> You bring your nasty self to my house and you do not have any real business then I will give you some 12 gauge pellets in your gut.



But you, Your ready to run for your 12gauge and shoot. 
You should realize homosexual's are people too, that vote.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> The state already does that... unless the parents ask for assistance.



That is misinformed nonsense.

It is kind-of true to view the law as a predator waiting on its victims, and then blame the parents for falling into the trap, but it still needs to be reformed.



hvp05 said:


> It would be amusing in a way to watch how upset people would get at you if they sought a custody/CS settlement but could not because you had shut down the system.



It would not be amusing to me, but that would be the point and purpose to let the parents do their own parenting.

I would be able to take the heated backlash where as others could not.

It might seem confusing (or amusing) at first but in a little time it would work out just fine.


----------



## Geruch

Highlander said:


> This is why someone like you Geruch have respect of others and why Dipsh*t JPC is and will always be an idiot.  He has been in trouble with the law numerous times.  He was diagnosed with mental disorders (that have apparently never been addressed).  He is totally delusional and can't grasp reality.  It's a total waste of time to try reason with cuSICK.  He is in a different world.  A world I don't care to visit.


I always say, Someone like JP Cusick, Is like talking to the brickwall and expecting results.

His mine is still wrap around that fact that he had to pay child support. When he thought he shouldn't have too. When he seen Bubba in jail, he got all religious. To this day, he's still seeking revenge for being put in jail. That's why he doesn't want to deal with more important issues that Maryland is face with. 

Hell the in the Washington Post it said, "He slept in his car in the St. Mary's County Government Center parking lot and dreamed of ways to protest a child-support system." Most adults wouldn't go around Spraying Graffiti onto Government & State buildings. Now that would be something I would expect a young teen to do, but never a adult.

Also said in the paper back in 2008, James P. Cusick Sr. wants to scale back the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, the region's largest employer. Now why would he think it was a good ideal to scale back a place that hires the most people? That may have force them to lay people off. 

That would have been a very bad ideal. Especially when the economy was in a downward swirl. Was that his way of getting more people relying on the Government for help? I have to wonder. What does that say for other businesses in Maryland? Is he going to want to scale back other businesses too? 

Plus this a reporter ask him,  Does that include the trips to jail? 

JP Cusick said, "Oh, no, I'm quite pleased about that," he said with a thoughtful nod. "Particularly for the spray painting." 

Now who in their right mine would say such a thing?  Maybe a teenage child would. 

JP Cusick isn't for the people of Maryland. It's all about him and what he wants.
JP Cusick would have the Governor office running like a Church.


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> I always say, Someone like JP Cusick, Is like talking to the brickwall and expecting results.
> 
> His mine is still wrap around that fact that he had to pay child support. When he thought he shouldn't have too. When he seen Bubba in jail, he got all religious. To this day, he's still seeking revenge for being put in jail. That's why he doesn't want to deal with more important issues that Maryland is face with.
> 
> Hell the in the Washington Post it said, "He slept in his car in the St. Mary's County Government Center parking lot and dreamed of ways to protest a child-support system." Most adults wouldn't go around Spraying Graffiti onto Government & State buildings. Now that would be something I would expect a young teen to do, but never a adult.
> 
> Also said in the paper back in 2008, James P. Cusick Sr. wants to scale back the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, the region's largest employer. Now why would he think it was a good ideal to scale back a place that hires the most people? That may have force them to lay people off.
> 
> That would have been a very bad ideal. Especially when the economy was in a downward swirl. Was that his way of getting more people relying on the Government for help? I have to wonder. What does that say for other businesses in Maryland? Is he going to want to scale back other businesses too?
> 
> Plus this a reporter ask him,  Does that include the trips to jail?
> 
> JP Cusick said, "Oh, no, I'm quite pleased about that," he said with a thoughtful nod. "Particularly for the spray painting."
> 
> Now who in their right mine would say such a thing?  Maybe a teenage child would.
> 
> JP Cusick isn't for the people of Maryland. It's all about him and what he wants.
> JP Cusick would have the Governor office running like a Church.



I guess I should have taken phycology in college.  I find JPC to be more of a lab project than a serious person, muchless a Governor's candidate.    I guess that's why he doesn't care for me a whole lot.  I tend to jerk his chain and not spend any time trying to reason with him.  

Hey Jimmy, give me your address.  I'd like to stop by this evening and spend some quality time with you.  I'll wear one of my wife's dresses and let you kiss me.  Maybe you can leave the 12 guage in the closet and show me your little pistol (wink wink).  lol.  Oh, and if I am moving in on your man too fast Geruck, you just let me know.  I think he really has the hots for you.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That is misinformed nonsense.


As well-reasoned and informative as that response is, anyone who has dealt with you for more than a few moments knows they can not take your words at face value.

With that, I went off to find some specific references...





			
				About Child Support in Maryland said:
			
		

> *When Courts Get Involved*
> 
> During a marriage or committed relationship, support is rarely a concern for the court.  But when parents divorce or stop living together with their children as a family, the courts often become involved.  The court is *often* required to decide how much support the non-custodial parent must pay.  Like custody, the amount of support can be decided by agreement or by fighting it out in front of a judge.  *You can avoid making child support a contested issue, and the legal expense of litigating this issue before a Master or a Judge.*  Both parents can agree to the appropriate amount of child support and make this agreement part of a marital separation agreement.  Child support payments, like alimony, may be incorporated into the divorce judgment or included in a marital separation agreement.  _(Source.)_


Everyone knows you use your own version of English, but even you can understand that the point of the paragraph - particularly the parts I bolded - is that the court need not necessarily put itself in the middle of the dispute.  The court does use the Guidelines to ensure a _minimum_ support level, which in turn ensures fairness to both sides, but the parents are otherwise left to work out the particularities themselves.  Now, go on with your delusional bad self and tell us why that is not how it works in the Jimmy universe.


----------



## Geruch

Highlander said:


> I guess I should have taken phycology in college.  I find JPC to be more of a lab project than a serious person, muchless a Governor's candidate.    I guess that's why he doesn't care for me a whole lot.  I tend to jerk his chain and not spend any time trying to reason with him.


I'm only here to seek the truth and pass it along to everybody I can. 
Maryland voters have a right to know the Real Truth about him.  
Nothing worse then voting for someone you know nothing about.

With the lack of experience, education, lack of reguard for the laws. 
No way do I think he stand a chance to be Governor of Maryland. 
There's to much at stake. There's more important issues to deal with. The working folks know that. 



Highlander said:


> Hey Jimmy, give me your address.  I'd like to stop by this evening and spend some quality time with you.  I'll wear one of my wife's dresses and let you kiss me.  Maybe you can leave the 12 guage in the closet and show me your little pistol (wink wink).  lol.  Oh, and if I am moving in on your man too fast Geruch, you just let me know.  I think he really has the hots for you.


Oh Hell No, You can have him. Go ahead,  
You crack me up. That was funny. ROTFLMAO


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> I'm only here to seek the truth and pass it along to everybody I can.
> Maryland voters have a right to know the Real Truth about him.
> Nothing worse then voting for someone you know nothing about.
> 
> With the lack of experience, education, lack of reguard for the laws.
> No way do I think he stand a chance to be Governor of Maryland.
> There's to much at stake. There's more important issues to deal with. The working folks know that.
> 
> 
> Oh Hell No, You can have him. Go ahead,
> You crack me up. That was funny. ROTFLMAO



Here's a great web site for any of you parents who need help collecting your child support. 
Maryland Child Support Enforcement Program: Local Offices - [MDHR]

Let's take care of those kids.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> With that, I went off to find some specific references...Everyone knows you use your own version of English, but even you can understand that the point of the paragraph - particularly the parts I bolded - is that the court need not necessarily put itself in the middle of the dispute.  The court does use the Guidelines to ensure a _minimum_ support level, which in turn ensures fairness to both sides, but the parents are otherwise left to work out the particularities themselves.  Now, go on with your delusional bad self and tell us why that is not how it works in the Jimmy universe.



What I posted is still true and accurate and you with the law and that link are just playing hateful games while destroying families.

As in yes the law allows for the parents to agree before Court as like the parents can agree to being robbed before actually being robbed because everyone already knows that the thieves in the law and the thieving Courts are waiting to attack the parent(s) if they do not make agreements.

There is still the threat of brute force to steal the Child Support loot in every case, so parents that agree to the thievery before going to the thief master or to avoid going to the thieving Court is still a parent being robbed.

This is like the Godfather that makes a deal that can not be refused, as in you can pay now or pay later but you are going to pay or else face the enforcers.

And Child Support is called *en-force-ment* because it is based on the brute force of thieves.


----------



## Geruch

> VoteJP / JP Cusick on Jul 6 2010. If we end the horrible divorce and separation laws then some of the domestic disputes will surely decrease accordingly.
> 
> And I do not it like that parents are often falsely accused of violence or abuses just to take away custody and to steal the children.
> 
> 
> JP Cusick said, I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the Child Support thievery.


More of JP Cusick BS


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> What I posted is still true and accurate and you with the law and that link are just playing hateful games while destroying families.
> 
> As in yes the law allows for the parents to agree before Court as like the parents can agree to being robbed before actually being robbed because everyone already knows that the thieves in the law and the thieving Courts are waiting to attack the parent(s) if they do not make agreements.
> 
> There is still the threat of brute force to steal the Child Support loot in every case, so parents that agree to the thievery before going to the thief master or to avoid going to the thieving Court is still a parent being robbed.
> 
> This is like the Godfather that makes a deal that can not be refused, as in you can pay now or pay later but you are going to pay or else face the enforcers.
> 
> And Child Support is called *en-force-ment* because it is based on the brute force of thieves.


Of course you would say that, Your mentally handicap. You don't have love for a child.

You don't believe that the absent, non-custodial or separated parent should help support their own child/ren.
Since you felt that way, You should have never had child/ren. Your a unfit father in every sense of the word.

You put yourself above your own son. What does that say for you? 
At least your son is old enough to know and see the truth about you. 
You just don't give a damn about child/ren. It's all about YOU and your wallet.

Shame on the custodial parent's for asking the other parent to take on half the responsibility for raising their own child/ren.

What is it, When you get divorce you forget you have child/ren. 
Or do you feel they will just get in the way of your happiest.
Or do you say, That B*tch isn't getting crap from me. They can go to welfare.

I'm just wondering, If you ever brought anything for your son on his birthday, christmas's, etc.  I doubt it. 's

Parents do their own parenting now. Something you know nothing about.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> Shame on the custodial parent's for asking the other parent to take on half the responsibility for raising their own child/ren.


 That would ideal if the one parents ask the other parent as in adult to adult working out their own parenting.

But the Child Support and Custody laws are not "asking" because those are only about stealing and the brute force of dirty thieves.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> That would ideal if the one parents ask the other parent as in adult to adult working out their own parenting.
> 
> But the Child Support and Custody laws are not "asking" because those are only about stealing and the brute force of dirty thieves.



Not all parents act like adults.. they won't support their children on their own and that is why the law is in place.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> What I posted is still true and accurate


   I'm sure it is in your amoeba-sized brain, Jimmy.  Kind of like how you insist you will be a winner even after you lose this latest election run.



> There is still the threat of brute force to steal the Child Support


   Only for the worst losers, such as yourself.  If it had been up to me, you would have served two years for every one that you stole from your son as that was the real theft.  Heck, at that rate, you'd still be in prison, right where you belong; at least if you're going to leech off the people, you should be prevented from littering the Internet with your trash.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That would ideal if the one parents ask the other parent as in adult to adult working out their own parenting. But the Child Support and Custody laws are not "asking" because those are only about stealing and the brute force of dirty thieves.


 Yea, Like that worked in your own case. Truth is, For years you was gone and provided NOTHING for your son. 

How can you talked about what's good for parents, When you wasn't even a real parent.

A lot people believe that both parents should equally support their own child/ren. So your tough out of luck.

Only thing that's on your mine is the MONEY in your WALLET. 
It has nothing to do with the child/ren or saving the marriage. 
Whether there's child support or not, people will still get divorce. 

A candidate that's a family man as the right to speak about parents. 
You are not a family man in any sense of the word.



> James P. Cusick, VoteJP, said, "I always do make exceptions for domestic violence, but
> *if we end the horrible divorce and separation laws *then some of the
> *domestic disputes will surely decrease accordingly*.
> 
> And I do not it like that parents are often falsely accused of violence or abuses just to take away custody and to steal the children."


End divorce and separation laws.

Another one of your crazy idea. Like doing that would decrease domestic disputes.


----------



## Geruch

LusbyMom said:


> Not all parents act like adults.. they won't support their children on their own and that is why the law is in place.


Now you know that isn't so. Without the laws they will do what's right. Your see. 
Expecting the other parent to pay child support, is a big no no. 
Got to give them a chance, can't have the laws forcing them.  
Their come around soon enough, but don't hold your breath. 
Maybe their come around before the child is close to 18 years old.

In the mean time, JP Cusick will give you a list where you can get some FREE stuff for your child/ren. 

Wow, Isn't life grand.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> Not all parents act like adults.. they won't support their children on their own and that is why the law is in place.



The laws are there to attack the parents before any thing else, and the parents do not have any options that can keep the laws from violating the families or their parenting.

You and the law slanders and degrades the separated parents when they have done nothing wrong.


----------



## thunderclapp

Geruch said:


> Also said in the paper back in 2008, James P. Cusick Sr. wants to scale back the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, the region's largest employer. Now why would he think it was a good ideal to scale back a place that hires the most people? That may have force them to lay people off.


Most likely, he was trying to get even with his "deamon (sic) mother from outer space" since that is where she worked.
Nora Elizabeth Cusick


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The laws are there to attack the parents before any thing else, and the parents do not have any options that can keep the laws from violating the families or their parenting.
> 
> You and the law slanders and degrades the separated parents when they have done nothing wrong.



Before anything else? 

Let me tell you that in my situation my ex paid me directly for 6 years without the laws and the courts or anything else. Then he got remarried and quit paying anything. Then I had the state step in to enforce it. He had his chance and like I said not all parents no how to act like adults.

The NCP is doing something wrong when they REFUSE to support the child they created.


----------



## Geruch

thunderclapp said:


> Most likely, he was trying to get even with his "deamon (sic) mother from outer space" since that is where she worked.
> Nora Elizabeth Cusick


She worked hard most of her life. She even went to college. Good for her.
Couldn't have been easy raising 12 children. That's a lot of children.

JP was probably the black sheep of the family, no doubt. 
After all, He did say in his younger days he did drugs and drank alcohol up until he was approx. 30yo.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> Before anything else?
> 
> Let me tell you that in my situation my ex paid me directly for 6 years without the laws and the courts or anything else. Then he got remarried and quit paying anything. Then I had the state step in to enforce it. He had his chance and like I said not all parents no how to act like adults.
> 
> The NCP is doing something wrong when they REFUSE to support the child they created.



I say you make a big mistake by putting your own life story on the board, because I do not want to give the horrible critique that surely could be given to you in this regard.

As most custodial parents like to blow their own trumpets and sing their own praises but the things between the lines do not agree.

You are deceiving your self and no one else.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I do not want to give the horrible critique that surely could be given to you in this regard.


You seem as if you are exercising restraint.  You have never previously hesitated to outright insult people and proclaim that you know more about everyone's situation than they do, so why start now?


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I say you make a big mistake by putting your own life story on the board, because I do not want to give the horrible critique that surely could be given to you in this regard.
> 
> As most custodial parents like to blow their own trumpets and sing their own praises but the things between the lines do not agree.
> 
> You are deceiving your self and no one else.



That isn't even the beginning of my story   But you say that parents should work it out themselves. My point was not all people can/will do that. So then what? The child gets nothing from one parent? Or the courts step in and force the parent to pay when the parent should already be paying. 

I am not singing my own praises. The fact is I have a child and I have to provide food, clothes, a home etc for my child. I had this child and my child is my responsibility. I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what. That's what real parents do. I am not a deadbeat that avoids paying for my child or has to be forced to support my child.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> I am not singing my own praises. The fact is I have a child and I have to provide food, clothes, a home etc for my child. I had this child and my child is my responsibility. I will see to it that my child is taken care of no matter what. That's what real parents do. I am not a deadbeat that avoids paying for my child or has to be forced to support my child.



The child really is not yours, because the child has two (2) parents.

What you have done is stolen the child from their Dad.

And then mis-used the evil laws to cheat the Dad and to service your own licentiousness and debaucheries.

Then you claim the Dad will not support the child when in fact it is your self that took custody and your self that claims the Child Support because you do not see it as right for you to feed and house the child that you kidnapped and hold for ransom from their Dad.

In this you are correct that you are NOT singing your own praises.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> The child really is not yours, because the child has two (2) parents.
> 
> What you have done is stolen the child from their Dad.
> 
> And then mis-used the evil laws to cheat the Dad and to service your own licentiousness and debaucheries.
> 
> Then you claim the Dad will not support the child when in fact it is your self that took custody and your self that claims the Child Support because you do not see it as right for you to feed and house the child that you kidnapped and hold for ransom from their Dad.
> 
> In this you are correct that you are NOT singing your own praises.



If I didn't take custody of my child who would have? The state? 

Oh and another thing. You say the state is there to help when the deadbeat parent isn't. Did you know that when you apply for state assistance that the child support you are SUPPOSE to get is counted as your income? So in reality that child support could prevent a parent from getting help from the state. It doesn't matter that the NCP is a deadbeat and doesn't pay. It's still counted.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> *The child really is not yours, because the child has two (2) parents.*
> 
> What you have done is stolen the child from their Dad.
> 
> And then mis-used the evil laws to cheat the Dad and to service your own licentiousness and debaucheries.
> 
> Then you claim the Dad will not support the child when in fact it is your self that took custody and your self that claims the Child Support because you do not see it as right for you to feed and house the child that you kidnapped and hold for ransom from their Dad.
> 
> In this you are correct that you are NOT singing your own praises.




A child does have TWO parents. So why is it you expect only ONE parent to take care of the child?


----------



## Highlander

LusbyMom said:


> A child does have TWO parents. So why is it you expect only ONE parent to take care of the child?





Why do people spend so much time trying to reason with cuSICK?  He tends to strike a nerve with most of us but you have to realize he is a sick, delusional person.  You are not going to change his mind.  His mind is not capable of normal thoughts.  He actually feeds off of the attention he gets.  We all know he is wacked when it comes to being responsible enough to pay child support.  We all know he isn't going to be elected Governor or even the janitor in the Governor's mansion, yet we continue to waste time trying to reason with him.  Ignore him. If you can't, spend your time telling him he is delusional, f'ed up and is a true mental case but don't waste your time arguing with him.  That's what he wants.  It's the only attention he gets in life.


----------



## LusbyMom

Highlander said:


> Why do people spend so much time trying to reason with cuSICK?  He tends to strike a nerve with most of us but you have to realize he is a sick, delusional person.  You are not going to change his mind.  His mind is not capable of normal thoughts.  He actually feeds off of the attention he gets.  We all know he is wacked when it comes to being responsible enough to pay child support.  We all know he isn't going to be elected Governor or even the janitor in the Governor's mansion, yet we continue to waste time trying to reason with him.  Ignore him. If you can't, spend your time telling him he is delusional, f'ed up and is a true mental case but don't waste your time arguing with him.  That's what he wants.  It's the only attention he gets in life.



He needs   you should go give him a big


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> A man walked into a bar on a slow night and sat down. After a few minutes, the bartender asked him if he wanted a drink.
> He replied, "No thanks. I don't drink. I tried it once, but I didn't like it."
> 
> So the bartender said, "Well, would you like a cigarette?"
> 
> But the man said, "No thanks. I don't smoke. I tried it once, but I didn't like it."
> 
> The bartender asked him if he'd like to play a game of pool, and again the man said, "No thanks. I don't like pool. I tried it once, but I didn't like it. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be here at all, but I'm waiting for my son."
> 
> The bartender said, "Your only son, I'm guessing."


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> For the past few weeks, Wikipedia has been trying to raise money via user donations.  When did Wikipedia turn into a deadbeat boyfriend?
> 
> "Now it needs you" …to give it money.
> 
> "Come on, baby.  Remember how I was there for you?  I helped put you through college.  If it weren't for me, you wouldn't of had the resume to get your job at the Bank of America.  So now, I come, asking for money this once, and suddenly you don't want to help me out?  You wouldn't be makin' that money at all if it weren't for me!"
> 
> Then you ask Wikipedia what he needs the money for.  "I need a lotta space," he responds.
> 
> And then you're like, Why don't you earn your own money?
> 
> And Wikipedia's all like, "I ain't gonna sell out!  I'm an artist!  I got street cred!!"
> 
> F' you, Wikipedia!  You ain't freeloading off my dime anymore!  Go sell yourself on the street for all I care.  Get some goddamn advertising!
> 
> No, no, I didn't mean it, Wikipedia.  I love you.  Here's a couple bucks.  You stay just the way you are.
> 
> I mean, where else can I find historically-suspect information about Rutherford B. Hayes?  Nowhere.  You're one of a kind.


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> 1.  dead beat baby daddy  17 up, 1 down
> buy dead beat baby daddy mugs, tshirts and magnetsloser, sperm donor, jerk who doesnt pay child supprt, still lives with mother, does not work..
> i wanted to buy my son a new dresser, but my dead beat baby daddy hasnt paid no money for child support in a year and im deadddd broke!!! aint got no money for extra crap
> loser sperm donor ####### dick head jerk
> by Robin e berry Oct 10, 2008 share this


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> 1.  dead beat  83 up, 33 down
> A sorry ass man who won`t step up to the plate and be a daddy!
> Is Tyrone paying child support for his baby?
> 
> You know his dead beat ass ain`t paying ####!


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> John finally found the nerve to tell his fiancée that he had to break off their engagement so he could marry another woman.
> "Can she cook like I can?" the distraught woman asked between sobs.
> "Not on her best day," he replied.
> "Can she buy you expensive gifts like I do?" she asked.
> "No, she's broke," he said.
> "Well, then, is it sex?" she inquired.
> "Nobody does it like you, babe!" he replied.
> "Then what can she do that I can't?" the woman tearfully asked.
> "Sue me for child support!!"


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> Today my baby girl's 18th birthday I be so glad that this be my last child support payment! Month after month, year after year, all those damn payments!
> 
> So I call my baby girl, LaKeesha, to come to my house, and when she get there, I say, "Baby girl, I want you to take this check over to yo momma house and tell her this be the last check she ever be gettin' from me, and I want you to come back and tell me the 'spression on yo mama's face."
> 
> So my baby girl she take the check over to her. I be anxious to hear what she say and what she look like.
> 
> Baby girl walk through the door, I say, "Now what yo momma say 'bout that?" She say to tell you that "you ain't my daddy" .... and watch the 'spression on yo face.
> 
> .


----------



## MMDad

VoteJP said:


> As if Octomom wasn't bad enough, a Tennessee man, 29 year old Desmond Hatchett has now fathered at least 21 children he can't support. Hatchett was in child support court again last week.  His name appeared on the dockett 11 times in one day, representing 15 of his children.
> 
> Hatchett says he wasn't out to set a record.  He says he never intended to have this many children, "It just happened."  He fathered the children by at least 11 different women and he claims all of the mothers knew about his large family.  The children range in age from newborn to 11 years old.
> 
> The question Knox County officials now face is how to support all these children.  Hatchett works a minimum wage job and by law the state can only take 50% of his paycheck for child support.  By the time that money is split 21 ways, some of the mothers get less than $2 per month.  That leaves the taxpayers footing a large portion of the bill for these children.
> 
> Even though Hatchett can't support the children he has, there is nothing the state can do to prevent him from having more.  Hatchett reports that he had 4 children in one year, twice.  He says he's done having children now, but only time will tell.  He does say that he's a good father and knows the names, ages, and birthdates of all of his children.
> 
> All of the blame can't be placed on Hatchett in this case.  One has to wonder about the women who chose to have his children.  In the end, the children and the taxpayers of Tennessee will pay for their choices for years to come.


----------



## CountryLady

Hawkeye said:


> Dude, I'm new to this string but I have read a bit of it.  Are you really running for Governor?   If you are, I hope Otis the drunk is running too so I'll have someone to vote for.....I weep for the future


----------



## Highlander

LusbyMom said:


> He needs   you should go give him a big



I told him I would turn gay just for him and give him a big kiss.  That really set him off.  I'm still laughing.  I need to figure out what other buttons to push.  If you notice, he hasn't bothered to respond to a few of my posts.  Sometimes he does but he has to think really hard to come up with a response.  Sometimes he can't respond.  I do enjoy the phyco warfare with him.  

Hey, JPC.  You may wanna look around your home.  I was told that a certain branch of the government has placed cameras and microphones in your home and are monitoring you 24/7.  You didn't hear that from me!


----------



## LusbyMom

Highlander said:


> I told him I would turn gay just for him and give him a big kiss.  That really set him off.  I'm still laughing.  I need to figure out what other buttons to push.  If you notice, he hasn't bothered to respond to a few of my posts.  Sometimes he does but he has to think really hard to come up with a response.  Sometimes he can't respond.  I do enjoy the phyco warfare with him.
> 
> Hey, JPC.  You may wanna look around your home.  I was told that a certain branch of the government has placed cameras and microphones in your home and are monitoring you 24/7.  You didn't hear that from me!



He reminds me of Lance


----------



## hvp05

Highlander said:


> I do enjoy the *phyco* warfare with him.


Why do you spell "psycho" like that?  I might not think anything of it, but you did it yesterday also.  Is that some kind of _super_-psycho?  Because that could fit Jimmy fine.


----------



## thunderclapp

*Judge orders couple to split custody of dog*



> A judge in Calvert County has ordered a divorcing couple to split the custody of their dog, Lucky.  Lucky Dog



J P Cusick Sr. should be happy with this decision.  After all, a dog has two (2) masters.  I'm so glad the thieving state didn't make the ncm steal the dog from the cm.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> A child does have TWO parents. So why is it you expect only ONE parent to take care of the child?



That is because the one parent stole the child from the other parent, and when one steals a child then the least the one can do is to feed and house and provide the custody for the child they stole.

It really is the State laws that steal the children as "Custody" and it is the law that steals the "Child Support cash" and the custodial receives all the unjust blame, and I intend to change that.

I wish for both parents to raise their own children, but we have one parent stealing the child from the other parent and that is why one parent is shut out.

Consider the gull of a parent (and the law) that steals the child and then demands cash money from the one that had their child robbed and kidnapped away from them.

I say by decency then the one that steals the child needs to pay damages to the other parent that suffered the only loss.

Consider the super rich as like Michael Jackson who arraigned for a woman to marry him and have his children and MJ pays her millions of cash dollars for himself to take custody of the children because the children are the valuables and not the money, and it happens all the time with other couples that can not have children as they pay big money for surrogate parents to give-up and give them the valuable children.

The fact that a "custodial" is to steal the child and then demand cash to pay for the stolen child is an absurd reality that needs to be stopped. And stopped not just because it is wrong but because it is detrimental to the foundation of any society to undermine the Institution of family and of parenting.



LusbyMom said:


> If I didn't take custody of my child who would have? The state?



The complication is that you and custodial parents are not happy and grateful to have and to raise their own God given children, but instead your kind cry and complain about having to feed and house your own children.

And if the one parents resents the custody of their own children THEN do give the custody to the other parent and then figure out the real truth.



LusbyMom said:


> Did you know that when you apply for state assistance that the child support you are SUPPOSE to get is counted as your income? So in reality that child support could prevent a parent from getting help from the state. It doesn't matter that the NCP is a deadbeat and doesn't pay. It's still counted.



I truly do not blame the custodial parents even when the custodial acts like a spoiled rotten brat.

It does seem as though I blame the custodial but in fact I sincerely blame the ignorant laws, and by reforming the family break up system then everyone will be better off including the children and both of the parents.

The laws do insult and degrade the custodial parents too and it is disgusting and reprehensible, because the Child Support and Custody laws are a friend to no one.

The ignorant laws break-up families and degrades both parents and alienates the children being treated as disposable property at the disposal of a Court.

Many custodial parents act as if they are winning or getting their vindication over the other parent, but the law is just paying off the custodial to shut them up.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



MMDad said:


> Baby girl walk through the door, I say, "Now what yo momma say 'bout that?" She say to tell you that "you ain't my daddy" .... and watch the 'spression on yo face.



That is an important point that many Men pay Child Support when the child(ren) are from some other Dad.

I honestly do not see how anyone can see that as funny, and the Courts do enforce such injustices by force of law.



MMDad said:


> i wanted to buy my son a new dresser, but my dead beat baby daddy hasnt paid no money for child support in a year and im deadddd broke!!! aint got no money for extra crap



Note that the baby's Mom demands an unneeded new dresser as another extra because she spent all of her loot and she wants more "extra crap". 

The father is a "deadbeat" for not paying for her "extras" and the law Courts and Child Support give power to this kind of family break up absurdities.



MMDad said:


> 29 year old Desmond Hatchett has now fathered at least 21 children
> 
> He fathered the children by at least 11 different women and he claims all of the mothers knew about his large family. The children range in age from newborn to 11 years old.
> 
> Hatchett works a minimum wage job and by law the state can only take 50% of his paycheck for child support. By the time that money is split 21 ways, some of the mothers get less than $2 per month. That leaves the taxpayers footing a large portion of the bill for these children.
> 
> He does say that he's a good father and knows the names, ages, and birthdates of all of his children.
> 
> All of the blame can't be placed on Hatchett in this case. One has to wonder about the women who chose to have his children. In the end, the children and the taxpayers of Tennessee will pay for their choices for years to come.



This is a story about an alpha-male having children as natural and human and the law tries to undermine the rightful place and authority of the alpha-males, and the law is hereby un-human and the law is un-natural and the law is wrong.

And take note that it claims that the law wants to provide for the children when the reality is only that the law wants to over rule the dominant alpha-male in which the ladies do not want to control.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That is an important point that many Men pay Child Support when the child(ren) are from some other Dad.


aternitytest:



> Note that the baby's Mom demands an unneeded new dresser as another extra


Fortunately, under the JP plan, such concerns would not be a problem because a child would probably own only one or two pairs of clothes.  Once those are worn to shreds, the parent can take the child to the thrift store and buy some "new" ones.



VoteJP said:


> the custodial receives all the unjust blame, and I intend to change that.


Don't you type your crap often enough to not make mistakes like that?      Hey, at least you finally typed something that's correct.   



> the gull of a parent


Now you're picking on birds too?


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> That is an important point that many Men pay Child Support when the child(ren) are from some other Dad.


 


hvp05 said:


> aternitytest:


 
 Not always true.
 lets say you marry a cheating whore that cant keep her drawers on around anything with a pulse and a crank.
 Now lets say this vile disease carrying gutter tramp produces some half breed offspring while you are still married.
 Since you and nobody in your family, or in her family is of asian hertage, and the baby obviously is partially asian, it would be easy to simply look at figure out that the baby is not yours, and your wife is a vile whore.

 Yet, even with all of this, since that baby was born into your marriage, you as the husband are still going to be held responsible for the financial care of the little bastardly POS that crawled out of your soon to be ex-wifes rotten crotch.

 That is not fair.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That is because the one parent stole the child from the other parent, and when one steals a child then the least the one can do is to feed and house and provide the custody for the child they stole.
> 
> It really is the State laws that steal the children as "Custody" and it is the law that steals the "Child Support cash" and the custodial receives all the unjust blame, and I intend to change that. I wish for both parents to raise their own children, but we have one parent stealing the child from the other parent and that is why one parent is shut out.
> 
> Consider the gull of a parent (and the law) that steals the child and then demands cash money from the one that had their child robbed and kidnapped away from them. I say by decency then the one that steals the child needs to pay damages to the other parent that suffered the only loss.
> 
> The fact that a "custodial" is to steal the child and then demand cash to pay for the stolen child is an absurd reality that needs to be stopped. And stopped not just because it is wrong but because it is detrimental to the foundation of any society to undermine the Institution of family and of parenting.
> 
> The complication is that you and custodial parents are not happy and grateful to have and to raise their own God given children, but instead your kind cry and complain about having to feed and house your own children. And if the one parents resents the custody of their own children THEN do give the custody to the other parent and then figure out the real truth.
> 
> I truly do not blame the custodial parents even when the custodial acts like a spoiled rotten brat. It does seem as though I blame the custodial but in fact I sincerely blame the ignorant laws, and by reforming the family break up system then everyone will be better off including the children and both of the parents.
> 
> The laws do insult and degrade the custodial parents too and it is disgusting and reprehensible, because the Child Support and Custody laws are a friend to no one. The ignorant laws break-up families and degrades both parents and alienates the children being treated as disposable property at the disposal of a Court.
> 
> Many custodial parents act as if they are winning or getting their vindication over the other parent, but the law is just paying off the custodial to shut them up.


All of what you said, Is just your perspective. Your opinion. 
I like to see some hard facts that back up your claim. 

The solution you ever offer is doing away with child support and custody laws. 
And having parents rely on family, friends, churches and welfare.
You said, Both of the parents would have to work it out on their own.
 But of course, With no custody or child support laws. Not your problem if they don't.

If one doesn't want to help provide for their own child/ren then what?  You would say, Not my problem.
If one parent chooses to not be in their own child/ren life then what? Again, You would say, Not my problem.

The parents would have to work it out on their own. If they can't. Oh Well, That's not my problem.

But it will become the state problem. I believe that would force more parents to apply for welfare checks. Taxes will have to be raise to cover the cost of taking care of all these child/ren. Because one parent is providing nothing at all. It's happen in the pass and it still happening today. That's the sad truth.

You would say, Not my problem, as that's what the welfare is for to provide for all. 

You said, "It does seem as though I blame the custodial" That's because you do blame the custodial parent. 

Sometimes you even come across as if you hate custodial parents. IMO of course.


----------



## Highlander

hvp05 said:


> Why do you spell "psycho" like that?  I might not think anything of it, but you did it yesterday also.  Is that some kind of _super_-psycho?  Because that could fit Jimmy fine.



You got me on that one.  I is usuily a muc gooder speler thin that.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> Not always true.
> lets say you marry a cheating whore that cant keep her drawers on around anything with a pulse and a crank.
> Now lets say this vile disease carrying gutter tramp produces some half breed offspring while you are still married.
> Since you and nobody in your family, or in her family is of asian hertage, and the baby obviously is partially asian, it would be easy to simply look at figure out that the baby is not yours, and your wife is a vile whore.
> 
> Yet, even with all of this, since that baby was born into your marriage, you as the husband are still going to be held responsible for the financial care of the little bastardly POS that crawled out of your soon to be ex-wifes rotten crotch.
> 
> That is not fair.



I just want to point out that I would never say anything as horribly ugly and disgusting as the trashy poster above has done there.

It is not really so wrong for a woman / wife / mother to tell some other man that they are the father because there are lots of reasons to justify such a lie and deception. I do not really give my approval but I do give my empathy and my sympathy to such situations.

The only true problem in this is that the law and the Courts attack the parents whether the law is right or wrong, and the parents are subsequently trashed and degraded and many parents are severely damaged because the law is improperly involved in none of its business.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> But it will become the state problem. I believe that would force more parents to apply for welfare checks. Taxes will have to be raise to cover the cost of taking care of all these child/ren. Because one parent is providing nothing at all. It's happen in the pass and it still happening today. That's the sad truth.
> 
> You would say, Not my problem, as that's what the welfare is for to provide for all.



A lot of people make this point that they do not want to pay for Welfare programs and it is tax dollars blah blah blah, so the Child Support laws are to lower the State and Federal budget expenditures because it certainly is NOT to help children or to help the families involved.

So see what we get for this = less taxes spent on Welfare but broken families and destroyed families just to save some Welfare tax dollars.

This is an example of how selfishness and greed are self destructive, because the Welfare cost are minimal while the undermining of our societal structure and destroying families is a far bigger price to pay.

The Welfare programs were intended to help the poor families because society stands on the backs of the poor families, while the thieving Child Support is intended to serve the State interest and it will destroy that of far greater value than the budget. 



Geruch said:


> Sometimes you even come across as if you hate custodial parents. IMO of course.



That is understandable since I do feel a contempt for the utter depravity that the custodial must stand for in order to play along with the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

The custodial playing ignorant is hard even for me to respect.

But the custodial being a spoiled rotten brat or even a hateful witch are parts to the normal human conditions, so that the problem is in having laws and Courts that give credence and empowerment to the hideous claims and pretensions that govern the Child Support extortion and the stealing of children as Custody.

There are immoral and debased Men as there are such Women, and the law is not to be giving any validity to such.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> A lot of people make this point that they do not want to pay for Welfare programs and it is tax dollars blah blah blah, so the Child Support laws are to lower the State and Federal budget expenditures because it certainly is NOT to help children or to help the families involved.
> 
> So see what we get for this = less taxes spent on Welfare but broken families and destroyed families just to save some Welfare tax dollars.
> 
> This is an example of how selfishness and greed are self destructive, because the Welfare cost are minimal while the undermining of our societal structure and destroying families is a far bigger price to pay.
> 
> The Welfare programs were intended to help the poor families because society stands on the backs of the poor families, while the thieving Child Support is intended to serve the State interest and it will destroy that of far greater value than the budget.
> 
> 
> 
> That is understandable since I do feel a contempt for the utter depravity that the custodial must stand for in order to play along with the evil Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> The custodial playing ignorant is hard even for me to respect.
> 
> But the custodial being a spoiled rotten brat or even a hateful witch are parts to the normal human conditions, so that the problem is in having laws and Courts that give credence and empowerment to the hideous claims and pretensions that govern the Child Support extortion and the stealing of children as Custody.
> 
> There are immoral and debased Men as there are such Women, and the law is not to be giving any validity to such.



Jimmy,  I probably shouldn't tell you this but I found out today that they are watching you.  If you happen to notice your internet speed slowing a little or notice a dark blue Ford Crown Vic with tinted windows behind you when you are driving around, you may wanna be careful.  I know we haven't been really good friends but I thought you deserved to know.  I don't think what they are doing is right.


----------



## Highlander

Highlander said:


> Jimmy,  I probably shouldn't tell you this but I found out today that they are watching you.  If you happen to notice your internet speed slowing a little or notice a dark blue Ford Crown Vic with tinted windows behind you when you are driving around, you may wanna be careful.  I know we haven't been really good friends but I thought you deserved to know.  I don't think what they are doing is right.



I was just informed that they may not be using the Crown Vic.  You may want to keep an eye on everyone for about 12 weeks.  I will let you know if I hear anything else.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> there are lots of reasons to justify such a lie and deception.


That's bound for someone's sig line.  Mr. Truthful, ladies and gentlemen!   




> I do give my empathy and my sympathy to such situations.


Empathy?!  Are you slyly admitting to something you have not before?  Or are you being stupid and using words you don't know the definitions for again?

If you are admitting to something, it wouldn't be that big of a surprise; I bet you had a lot of crazy nights during your drinking/drugging days out West.


----------



## daisycreek

I tried really hard not to look... I really did. BUT, all this talk of custody and taking the child from one parent.....

DO YOU REALIZE THE LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE (CREATE ) BABIES AND WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHILD?? There is no question of splitting a family apart. It's just, "HIT IT AND FORGET IT"

They had no interest in having a family... just sex!


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> A lot of people make this point that they do not want to pay for Welfare programs and it is tax dollars blah blah blah, so the Child Support laws are to lower the State and Federal budget expenditures because it certainly is NOT to help children or to help the *families *involved.
> 
> So see what we get for this = less taxes spent on Welfare but broken families and *destroyed families *just to save some Welfare tax dollars.
> 
> This is an example of how selfishness and greed are self destructive, because the Welfare cost are minimal while the undermining of our societal structure and *destroying families* is a far bigger price to pay.
> 
> The Welfare programs were intended to help the poor *families* because society stands on the backs of the poor *families,* while the thieving Child Support is intended to serve the State interest and it will destroy that of far greater value than the budget.
> 
> 
> 
> That is understandable since I do feel a contempt for the utter depravity that the custodial must stand for in order to play along with the evil Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> The custodial playing ignorant is hard even for me to respect.
> 
> But the custodial being a spoiled rotten brat or even a hateful witch are parts to the normal human conditions, so that the problem is in having laws and Courts that give credence and empowerment to the hideous claims and pretensions that govern the Child Support extortion and the stealing of children as Custody.
> 
> There are immoral and debased Men as there are such Women, and the law is not to be giving any validity to such.



*Please see post #1330*


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> I tried really hard not to look... I really did. BUT, all this talk of custody and taking the child from one parent.....



Post #1330 

The huge injustices going on through the evil Child Support and Custody laws are the most important thing going in in our entire society.

It is what I call a powerful social undercurrent.

Link = Worldwide Step family tribulations. PDF file.



daisycreek said:


> DO YOU REALIZE THE LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE (CREATE ) BABIES AND WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHILD?? There is no question of splitting a family apart. It's just, "HIT IT AND FORGET IT"



Parents will resist and fight the evil Child Support and Custody laws - and rightly so.

But then to claim the parent does not care for their child because they do not care for paying thieves is outside of reality.



daisycreek said:


> They had no interest in having a family... just sex!



That is the after effect of birth control, since prior to effective birth control then sex was to produce children and not just to gratify lust.

But we must remember that sex is a normal human body function, so criticizing a body function and putting it under laws is kind of un-human, IMO.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That is the after effect of birth control, since prior to effective birth control then sex was to produce children and not just to gratify lust. But we must remember that sex is a normal human body function, so criticizing a body function and putting it under laws is kind of un-human, IMO.


Oh please, You think the only time people had sex before birth control.  
Was when they wanted children. That's funny. ROTFLMAO  

Of course having sex is a normal human body function. Duhhhhhhhh 
I don't believe Daisycreek is criticizining a normal body fuction. Where you get that idea from? lmao 

She clearly talking about men using women for sex only. That can work both ways, of course. 
The woman get's pregnant, the father of the child decides he wants nothing to do with the child or mother. 

I believe that's what she's a talking about.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Parents will resist and fight the evil Child Support and Custody laws - and rightly so.
> 
> But then to claim the parent does not care for their child because they do not care for paying thieves is outside of reality.


A person that doesn't want the responsibility of raising a child until their 18. 
A person that doesn't want to be tied down with a child. 
A person that doesn't want to provide for their own child.

Then keep your wing ding lock up and women need to keep their legs closed. 
At least use some form of birth control and condoms. 

Child/ren deserve to have a safe, happy, environment and to be well provided for.  

There's plenty of parents that honesty do not care about their own child/ren.
JP, You need to wake up to reality. But of course how could you. 
You wasn't a parent in any sense of the word. Never Mind.

Thank goodness for Step Parents, Foster Parents, Adoption Agency. 
For all children that aren't wanted by their parents. 

Bringing a child into this world is a big decision. That shouldn't be taken lightly.


----------



## daisycreek

Thank you Geruch, I should know by now that JPC, will take any post and twist it to fit his agenda. Or view it in his frame of mind regardless of the true meaning.

But, you explained it very well.


----------



## Geruch

daisycreek said:


> Thank you Geruch, I should know by now that JPC, will take any post and twist it to fit his agenda.
> Or view it in his frame of mind regardless of the true meaning.
> 
> But, you explained it very well.


Your quite welcome Daisy, Glad I could help, not that you really needed it.  
I clearly understood where you were coming from. But of course, I'm not delusional

Twisting a post out of context is not the cool thing to do. 
Actually it makes him look like he has a few screws loose. 
I notice JP Cusick comprehension skill is lacking.  

Who in their right mine would tell another adult this? 

JP Cusick said, " We must remember that sex is a normal human body function."   
As if we didn't know. Gee Wiz


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> Your quite welcome Daisy, Glad I could help, not that you really needed it.
> I clearly understood where you were coming from. But of course, I'm not delusional
> 
> Twisting a post out of context is not the cool thing to do.
> Actually it makes him look like he has a few screws loose.
> I notice JP Cusick comprehension skill is lacking.
> 
> Who in their right mine would tell another adult this?
> 
> JP Cusick said, " We must remember that sex is a normal human body function."
> As if we didn't know. Gee Wiz




Do as I do.  Forget trying to reason with him and have fun screwing with him.  It's much more entertaining.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> Thank you Geruch, I should know by now that JPC, will take any post and twist it to fit his agenda. Or view it in his frame of mind regardless of the true meaning.
> 
> But, you explained it very well.


I did understand all that you posted, and I replied to it correctly.

I did not twist or misrepresent anything that you said because all I did was give my response to your words.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP / James P. Cusick said:


> *We must remember that sex is a normal human body function. *


 Are you trying to play teacher now?   Yes, I think it's very funny.



VoteJP / James P. Cusick said:


> That is the after effect of birth control, since prior to effective birth control then
> *sex was to produce children and not just to gratify lust.*


What happen after the woman becomes pregnant. They stop having sex?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> Are you trying to play teacher now?   Yes, I think it's very funny.
> 
> What happen after the woman becomes pregnant. They stop having sex?



I do teach in many cases, and you have taken my words out of context and incorrectly quoted me, so your humor and your posting is based only on your own dishonesty.

I myself am happy with people having sex and making babies and on and on.

My complaint is against the ignorant and inhuman laws that attack and punish parents for having children.

The Child Support and Custody laws are unnatural and un-human and destructive to our society.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> I do teach in many cases, and you have taken my words out of context and incorrectly quoted me, so your humor and your posting is based only on your own dishonesty.
> 
> I myself am happy with people having sex and making babies and on and on.
> 
> My complaint is against the ignorant and inhuman laws that attack and punish parents for having children.
> 
> The Child Support and Custody laws are unnatural and un-human and destructive to our society.



JP....Has anyone on this forum or any of the other forums you waste your time on ever agreed with your warped opinion of child support?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Highlander said:


> JP....Has anyone on this forum or any of the other forums you waste your time on ever agreed with your warped opinion of child support?



I do not know of anyone that agrees completely with me as I am the leader and I am paving the path.

But in 2008 then I had 19,067 votes for me and 1,194 of those votes came from here in our own St Mary's County, link HERE.

I do not need anyone to agree on these forums as I am the one spokesperson for the end of the evil Child Support and Custody laws - and rightly so.

The great Alexander of Macedonia led the change himself at a fine point as like a needle point - and so do I.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I did understand all that you posted, and I replied to it correctly.


Nope, you didn't.  In fact, you said one of the most ridiculously wrong things I've ever seen you say, which is a lot for ye, the King of Mistruths.


VoteJP said:


> prior to effective birth control then sex was to produce children and not just to gratify lust.


   Fact:  prostitution has existed since the days of ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece.  It's not called "the world's oldest profession" without reason.

If anyone were to believe your silliness, they would have to believe prostitutes were woman who didn't do it for money but because they liked getting pregnant.  Likewise, their Johns didn't go to them because they enjoyed sex but because they enjoyed getting random women pregnant.

Before you bring up the history of condoms... condoms, in some form, have also been around since ancient times, but how "effective" those from several hundred years ago and prior were is unknown.  Besides, condoms were not considered useful as "birth control" until a few hundred years ago. 



> But we must remember that sex is a normal human body function, so criticizing a body function and putting it under laws is kind of un-human


Peoples' sexual habits is not up for argument, you doofus, because sex in of itself does not harm taxpayers.  If sex were being controlled, there would be much fewer irresponsible deadbeats and much fewer neglected children in the first place.  When a person is a deadbeat and a child is neglected, however, the law is compelled to intervene.  But I'm not saying something you don't already know - and something your alcohol-addled brain will deny.

With that, good afternoon, idiot.


----------



## Highlander

VoteJP said:


> I do not know of anyone that agrees completely with me as I am the leader and I am paving the path.
> 
> But in 2008 then I had 19,067 votes for me and 1,194 of those votes came from here in our own St Mary's County, link HERE.
> 
> I do not need anyone to agree on these forums as I am the one spokesperson for the end of the evil Child Support and Custody laws - and rightly so.
> 
> The great Alexander of Macedonia led the change himself at a fine point as like a needle point - and so do I.



How many of those 19,067 people actually knew anything about you when they voted?  There's no real way of telling but I would think you'd be able to count them on one hand.  

Erhlich will be our next Governor, although Murphy sounds pretty good, too.  You might get hired to help OweMalley pack his boxes.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> You have taken my words out of context and incorrectly quoted me,
> So your humor and your posting is based only on your own dishonesty.


 I just pointed out portion of what you said. That I thought was quite funny. So What
The Original Posts below, Are you happy now? Meaning is still the same and it's still funny. 



> daisycreek said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had no interest in having a family... just sex!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VoteJP said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the after effect of birth control, since prior to effective birth control
> *then sex was to produce children and not just to gratify lust.*
> 
> But *we must remember that sex is a normal human body function, *
> so criticizing a body function and putting it under laws is kind of un-human, IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Tell me, Where did Daisy criticizing sex?

Truth is, There are people in the world that aren't ready or even thinking about having a child. 
They don't use protection then there is a child born that isn't wanted by one parent or the other parent or both.

That's the truth, As sad as it might be. It's The Truth - You just don't want to hear the truth.



VoteJP said:


> I myself am happy with people having sex and making babies and on and on.


Yea, We know, You want people to be fruitful. Even if they can't or won't provide for their own child/ren.





VoteJP said:


> My complaint is against the ignorant and inhuman laws that attack and punish parents for having children.


 Yea, We know, How many years have you been saying the SOS now? So what's new?



VoteJP said:


> The Child Support and Custody laws are unnatural and un-human and destructive to our society.


 So you think it's natural to not provide for your own child/ren. hummmmmm


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I am the leader and I am paving the path.


You made another funny.   

From the way it looks it's going to be a close ran. But your not in it.
Your just a fly on the bathroom wall waiting for your next meal.


----------



## daisycreek

How much longer do you think the federal governmant can continue to dole out money for nothing?  More and more people are receiving cash assistance. Now, the career choice is to apply for Social Security Disability. Most of the new ssdi applicants are young, able bodied people- applying for carpal tunnel syndrome, degenerative disc disease  etc etc 

Medical issues that many of us deal with everyday, yet continue to work. At some point if this trend continues we are bound to run out of money. There will be more people on assistance than working. So whats your plan for the recoupement of some of the money outflow?  

Still waiting for you to explain to me.. how a child born as the trade of sex for drugs.. Mom receives TCA, Dad never knew the child was born.. has no interest in being the childs father........ is destroying familes??? Stealing the drug dealers  money??????????

So according to you its perfectly fine for the taxpayers to provide for all this childs needs and Dad can go on his way selling drugs and never be responsible for the child he created.

Because the government will provide for the child... Umm I know you don't know where the money comes from that is given out in TCA, free housing, food stamps, free electric, free heat, free medical, free cell phones... etc etc etc.

BUT I KNOW WHERE IT COMES FROM-- everytime I look at my paycheck and well over 27% of what I earned is gone-- yet my electric will be turned off, I may be eating peanut butter for 2 weeks, and keeping my heat at 55 degrees in the winter so that I can stretch the fuel out thru the winter.. 


yes, thank goodness Clinton forced states to establish CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT in return for TCA funds!!!!!!!! Best law ever enacted.


----------



## bcp

daisycreek said:


> Now, the career choice is to apply for Social Security Disability. Most of the new ssdi applicants are young, able bodied people- applying for carpal tunnel syndrome, degenerative disc disease etc etc
> 
> .


This pisses me off more than anything.
 I have had a heart attack (big mac induced) broken my back once, and had another back operation for a disc that left my left foot without feeling and unable to lift when i walk. Two years ago I had Pnemonia and didnt know it, went all summer with it and ended up scaring my lungs to the point of losing almost 30 percent of my lung power.

 I could get SSD, doctor offered to sign the papers for me to do it. But I wont. Although I cant work in the field I was in because of it, I can work in the computer field and get along just fine. I figure if I can work, then I will and I dont really need any supplimental income that comes from the taxpayers.

 I dont understand how someone can live with themselves when they pull what I consider a scam like this.

 I did however get the handicap parking thing for my truck. Thats right, for my truck. seems that the only places I can part it are in the very back of the lot where its empty, or the handicap spaces where its wide enough to park in.

 Even with all the problems that I have had, I still have more energy than some 30 year olds that I come across. maybe its because Im just refusing to let some little things like I suffered stop me?


----------



## Geruch

I'm with Daisy and You bcp. 

I fell off a ladder at approx. 30ft up. Out like a light for approx 1 day. Broke both side of my pelvic's, broken my arm, my cheek bone. Fractor my lower back real bad. For awhile I didn't have any feeling in my feet or legs. The doctors put a partical bodycast on me. When I finally came home, I had to have a wheel chair, portable potty chair.  

Soon as I recop after approx 9 months, I was back to work. Not once did I think about getting a disability check. Some of my previous customers notice my accident in the local paper and donated some money, I had some money of my own. But Boy, It was good to get back to work. That's for sure. That happen 9 years ago. I be lying if I said I was 100%. 

Even when I was in the hospital. Not once did my ex come to my house. And see how his children was a doing. My children couldn't even count on their father in their time of need. My children were scare. They didn't think mom was coming home. He did nothing for them at that time, Nothing. That's the hard cold truth. 

God Bless my family. At least, My children and I can count on my sisters when I really needed too.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The great Alexander of Macedonia led the change himself at a fine point as like a needle point - and so do I.


I was doing a bit of reading on Alexander this morning...





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> He is the most celebrated member of the Argead Dynasty and created one of the largest empires in ancient history. ... Although both Alexander's reign and empire were short-lived, the cultural impact of his conquests lasted for centuries. Alexander was known to be undefeated in battle and is considered one of the most successful commanders of all time


Given all that, it seems you two share many more dissimilarities than you do similarities.  You have been beaten soundly in each election, not to mention losing at most everything you have done for at least the past fifteen years.  Your "legacy" will die with you.  And you most certainly will not be celebrated by following generations.   

Now, in the 2004 film "Alexander", there was an idea proffered that he might have enjoyed certain, um, mixed sexual relationships.  Only you know if you share that characteristic with him or not.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> How much longer do you think the federal governmant can continue to dole out money for nothing?
> More and more people are receiving cash assistance.



It is a matter of values and of priorities.

As like the Federal govt spends hundreds of billions of dollars (100B$) per year after year just to attack and occupy foreign Countries on the other side of our planet, while some Americans complain about giving $500 per month to a needy family.

So claiming that social programs and welfare and Public Assistance is putting out money for nothing is not a reflection of high values or ethical priorities.



daisycreek said:


> So whats your plan for the recoupement of some of the money outflow?



The Govt is not to recoup its expenditures as the Govt is not to be regarded as a Company for profit or a Corporation and taxes are not to be recouped. 

The Govt expenditures are not to be loans and are not to be business deals.



daisycreek said:


> Still waiting for you to explain to me.. how a child born as the trade of sex for drugs.. Mom receives TCA, Dad never knew the child was born.. has no interest in being the childs father........ is destroying familes??? Stealing the drug dealers  money??????????
> 
> So according to you its perfectly fine for the taxpayers to provide for all this childs needs and Dad can go on his way selling drugs and never be responsible for the child he created.



That really is a silly and unrealistic scenario just to try to justify the thievery of the Child Support and Custody laws. 

If the Mom traded sex (the conception) for drugs then the Mom needs rehabilitation and help with the addiction and probably need to have the child removed from her and she surely does NOT need to be paid any Child Support as she already has everything provided for the child through the Social Services if she qualifies.

And trying to collect such Child Support from the drug dealer does indeed seem like an idiotic thing for the State law to do.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> I was doing a bit of reading on Alexander this morning...Given all that, it seems you two share many more dissimilarities than you do similarities.
> 
> Now, in the 2004 film "Alexander", there was an idea proffered that he might have enjoyed certain, um, mixed sexual relationships.  Only you know if you share that characteristic with him or not.



There is a theory that the old Greeks invented homosexuality and that might be true?

But I do not claim to be some reincarnation of Alexander as I am only saying that his battle plan was brilliant and I follow that plan.

And Alexander had several wives including the famous Roxane so the stories of him being otherwise might not be true.


----------



## daisycreek

VoteJP said:


> The Govt is not to recoup its expenditures as the Govt is not to be regarded as a Company for profit or a Corporation and taxes are not to be recouped.
> 
> The Govt expenditures are not to be loans and are not to be business deals.
> 
> Ok you should start donating 25% of your disabilty pay
> 
> That really is a silly and unrealistic scenario just to try to justify the thievery of the Child Support and Custody laws.
> you are soooo out of touch... this is 2010 not 1990 and this scenario happens everyday!
> 
> If the Mom traded sex (the conception) for drugs then the Mom needs rehabilitation and help with the addiction and probably need to have the child removed from her and she surely does NOT need to be paid any Child Support as she already has everything provided for the child through the Social Services if she qualifies.
> 
> And trying to collect such Child Support from the drug dealer does indeed seem like an idiotic thing for the State law to do.



HA HA HA  you are really hilarious... umm you were joking weren't ya?


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The Govt is not to recoup its expenditures as the Govt is not to be regarded as a Company for profit or a Corporation and taxes are not to be recouped.


Maybe this is how Jimmy-math works, but in reality, getting back what one puts out is not making a profit, it's breaking even - and that's what the government ought to do or it will be functioning on a deficit.  

By the way, did you not read post 1343 or are you pretending it's not there?


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That is the after effect of birth control, since prior to effective birth control
> then sex was to produce children and not just to gratify lust.
> 
> But we must remember that sex is a normal human body function,
> so criticizing a body function and putting it under laws is kind of un-human, IMO.


JP Cusick, You might want to do a search next time. The History of Condoms


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> By the way, did you not read post 1343 or are you pretending it's not there?





Geruch said:


> JP Cusick, You might want to do a search next time. The History of Condoms



You guys must have nothing except perverted sex on your brains.

The subject and discussion was and is about the evil Child Support and Custody laws which punish parents for having children.

If we continue as it is then the day might come where the parenting police and big-daddy govt might start punishing the parents just for their sex - but that has not happened yet.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



daisycreek said:


> HA HA HA  you are really hilarious... umm you were joking weren't ya?



Of course I am not joking as I am very sincere.

We need to start helping parents with preserving their families and stop using State laws to tear families apart.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> You guys must have nothing except perverted sex on your brains.


   It's funny when you deny someone else's words but hilarious when you deny your own.  I must admit, it would be entertaining to watch you spill out your contradictions and fallacies in a real press conference.


----------



## Geruch

Post #1332 You said, 





VoteJP said:


> That is the after effect of birth control, since prior to effective birth control
> then sex was to produce children and not just to gratify lust.
> 
> But we must remember that sex is a normal human body function,
> so criticizing a body function and putting it under laws is kind of un-human, IMO.


Post #1340 





VoteJP said:


> I myself am happy with people having sex and making babies and on and on.


Post #1343 


hvp05 said:


> Before you bring up the history of condoms... condoms, in some form, have also been around since ancient times, but how "effective" those from several hundred years ago and prior were is unknown.  Besides, condoms were not considered useful as "birth control" until a few hundred years ago.


Post #1355 


Geruch said:


> JP Cusick, You might want to do a search next time. The History of Condoms


Post #1356 





VoteJP said:


> You guys must have nothing except perverted sex on your brains.


That's your preception of what we pointed out. 

JP Cusick you said, "Sex is a normal human body function."
And now you say, "You guys must have preverted sex on your brains."

What is normal and what is preverted sex to you? :shrug:

hvp05 Pointed out that you were wrong. I give you a link to the History of Condoms.

There's nothing preverted about practicing safe sex. 

Condoms and Birth Control pills were invented so two adults could prevent unwanted pregancy. 
The pill gave women more control over their own body. They could decide when they wanted child/ren.
The husband and wife could decide when it was the right time  for them to have child/ren.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> That's your perception of what we pointed out.



I do believe that I am the only one that can give my perception and no one else can.

If we look at my post #1356 then I said as follows:

"The subject and discussion was and is about the evil Child Support and Custody laws which punish parents for having children."

I like people becoming parents and the more babies the better - be fruitful and multiply. 

The reform we need now is State laws which help parents instead of punishing parents and dividing families.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I do believe that I am the only one that can give my perception and no one else can.


Ahhh, Booooo Whooooo, Quit crying 



VoteJP said:


> You guys must have nothing except perverted sex on your brains.


The comment above is consider your perception. You wrote it. 



VoteJP said:


> I like people becoming parents and the more babies the better - be fruitful and multiply.



Of course you would. So long as the non-custodial parents don't have to pay child support.  



VoteJP said:


> The reform we need now is State laws which help parents instead of punishing parents and dividing families.



JP Cusick, Is all about " Protecting the Non Custodial Wallet. "
Then he's about both parents supporting their own children.

JP Cusick, Is all about wanting "Custodial Parents" to provide all. 
While the " Non-Custodial " parent " Provides Nothing."

JP Cusick, Not only do you not want Non-Custodial parents paying child support.
You also want Family, Friends, Churches and Welfare also to provide all.

JP Cusick, Is all about putting the blaming on the Courts. 
Even though it's Two Adults that destroy their own marriage.

JP Cusick most of all, Your about doing away with Child Support and Custody Laws completely.
That in it's self isn't considered Reform. I consider that as easy way out without thinking.

JP Cusick, You would like nothing more then to run the Governor office. As if it was a Church. 
Your policy's would be what you fine in the Bible of your choosing.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> JP Cusick, Is all about " Protecting the Non Custodial Wallet. "
> Then he's about both parents supporting their own children.
> 
> JP Cusick, Is all about wanting "Custodial Parents" to provide all.
> While the " Non-Custodial " parent " Provides Nothing."
> 
> JP Cusick, Not only do you not want Non-Custodial parents paying child support.
> You also want Family, Friends, Churches and Welfare also to provide all.
> 
> JP Cusick, Is all about putting the blaming on the Courts.
> Even though it's Two Adults that destroy their own marriage.
> 
> JP Cusick most of all, Your about doing away with Child Support and Custody Laws completely.
> That in it's self isn't considered Reform. I consider that as easy way out without thinking.
> 
> JP Cusick, You would like nothing more then to run the Governor office. As if it was a Church.
> Your policy's would be what you fine in the Bible of your choosing.



What I say is that you seem to devalue the children as like low self esteem includes low children esteem.

I realize people pretend that stealing the children as "Custody" and then stealing the so called "Child Support" is to be putting a high value on the children but it is not.

The parents with their children are the ones having the prize, while the parents divided from their children are the ones that have suffered loss.

Of course those children are also losing one of their parents which is another and the biggest violation of the family.

It is like stealing a new car and then asking and demanding that the person robbed pay the thieves the gas and upkeep of the car which is absurd both because the car is regarded as having value and the car thieves are regarded as the criminals. 

But here we say the custodial parents does not have a valuable baby but a burden baby, and the parent that loses their children are regarded as if they won or escaped their parenting which is absurd.

People put a cheap price tag of Child Support onto the children and to the custodial because parenting and children are devalued in this system.

This system has made it into a punishment to feed and house and raise the parents' own children.


----------



## bcp

I have really heard it all now.
 a child is of no more value than a car.
 something owned that can be traded or junked.

 amazing what a wet brain will come up with.


----------



## hvp05

bcp said:


> a child is of no more value than a car.


He's used that one for a while, actually.  His low valuing of children is equally apparent in his willingness to have them accept welfare before CS.


----------



## Geruch

> 'VoteJP' date='May 4 2010, 02:47 PM' post='118641']Yes, I do want to raise my own children, and I hope that all parents would be able to raise their own children.Herald Mail Forum


Well, You sure didn't raise JR now did you. The ex-wife and stepfather did. 
You was no were to be found. What does it mean to you to raise a child?



> JP Cusick said, "I like children so I do not want being able or unable "to afford" to have any baring on having children, and I like the Bible directive of go ahead and be fruitful and multiply.
> 
> There could be better JP Cusick said, Social Services to provide better for parents.."


The responsibility that goes along with becoming a parent shouldn't be taken lightly. 
Nor should it ALL fall on the Government, family, friends or churches and who ever else. 
Both Parents should provide for their own child/ren. You don't believe that both parents should.

JP Cusick, Promotes Welfare. He doesn't want parents to be responsible for providing for their own child/ren.

It's like JP Cusick saying, Have all the child/ren you want. It's FREE. Government & taxpayers will pick up the tab. Don't worry we won't hold you responsible for providing for your own children. Here's the list to get FREE STUFF.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> I have really heard it all now.
> a child is of no more value than a car.
> something owned that can be traded or junked.
> 
> amazing what a wet brain will come up with.



I am sure you meant otherwise, but your words agree with what I said.

That a person stealing a car will at least buy their own gasoline, but a child is stolen as custody and then the thieves demand cash in Child Support to feed and house the child.

The car gets a far higher regard of value than does a child under our State laws.

The least one can do when they steal a child from the parent is to feed and house the child instead of crying for Child Support from the parent that got ripped off.

When it is a stolen car then it is the thief that goes to jail.


----------



## Geruch

*JP Cusick, is delusional.*



VoteJP said:


> What I say is that you seem to devalue the children as like low self esteem includes low children esteem.



I don't live in your delusional world. I don't know what the h*ll your talking about. 



VoteJP said:


> That a person stealing a car will at least buy their own gasoline, but a child is stolen as custody and then the thieves demand cash in Child Support to feed and house the child.
> 
> The car gets a far higher regard of value than does a child under our State laws..


JP Cusick, Do you know how stupid you sound? I don't think so. 
There you go again, Compairing a car to a child. 



VoteJP said:


> The least one can do when they steal a child from the parent is to feed and house the child instead of crying for Child Support from the parent that got ripped off.


Custodial parents do house, feed and cloth their child/ren. 
Most people think that both parents should provide. Expect for you. 

It's all so very clear. It's all about the wallet then it is about parents supporting their own child/ren.


----------



## Kyle

After reading this dumbasses #####ing about child support, and other issues over the years... I cant help but wonder...

WTF would have possessed some woman to be reproduce with JP?


----------



## thunderclapp

*More fodder from the deadbeat father.*

JayPee's new blog...



> I finally got my blog up and running today.
> 
> Link it here = (D).The next Governor of Maryland J.P. Cusick
> 
> BUT = I am told that voters placing comments on my blog is not allowed, and it is not my fault as that is just the rule for all the blogs.  Join in the fun!


----------



## Geruch

thunderclapp said:


> JayPee's new blog...



Once again, JP Cusick lie's. 

Candidates reserve the right to remove any user or user's comments that are identified as inappropriate. Examples of these types of infractions include but are not limited to comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, racist, sexist, and homophobic or use other offensive terminology. Additionally, comments that are solicitations and/or advertising spam or include attacks that celebrate the death, injury or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise are prohibited.


----------



## LusbyMom

bcp said:


> I have really heard it all now.
> a child is of no more value than a car.
> something owned that can be traded or junked.
> 
> amazing what a wet brain will come up with.



Geez it took you long enough to figure it out! Wonder if when they become PITA teens you can trade them in?


----------



## Highlander

Geruch said:


> Once again, JP Cusick lie's.
> 
> Candidates reserve the right to remove any user or user's comments that are identified as inappropriate. Examples of these types of infractions include but are not limited to comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, racist, sexist, and homophobic or use other offensive terminology. Additionally, comments that are solicitations and/or advertising spam or include attacks that celebrate the death, injury or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise are prohibited.



I suspected this when he posted the info about the blog.  He made the point about not being able to comment stand out.  He just wants to be able to delete anything bad which will be just about every post.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> I am sure you meant otherwise, but your words agree with what I said.
> 
> That a person stealing a car will at least buy their own gasoline, but a child is stolen as custody and then the thieves demand cash in Child Support to feed and house the child.
> 
> The car gets a far higher regard of value than does a child under our State laws.
> 
> *The least one can do when they steal a child from the parent is to feed and house the child instead of crying for Child Support from the parent that got ripped off.*
> 
> When it is a stolen car then it is the thief that goes to jail.



And what exactly should happen when the child isn't stolen from the NCP when the NCP doesn't want them and threw them out like trash? Kinda like what you did with your son.. you ran from him.


----------



## Geruch

Geruch said:


> Once again, JP Cusick lie's.
> Candidates reserve the right to remove any user or user's comments that are identified as inappropriate. Examples of these types of infractions include but are not limited to comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, racist, sexist, and homophobic or use other offensive terminology. Additionally, comments that are solicitations and/or advertising spam or include attacks that celebrate the death, injury or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise are prohibited.





Highlander said:


> I suspected this when he posted the info about the blog.  He made the point about not being able to comment stand out.  He just wants to be able to delete anything bad which will be just about every post.



Seem petty and childish to lie about something like that. 
Took me less then a min, to find that info. 

Now if a post gets deleted, He can't blame someone else for it.


----------



## bcp

LusbyMom said:


> Geez it took you long enough to figure it out! Wonder if when they become PITA teens you can trade them in?


already tried.
 the ignorant law says I cant.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> There you go again, comparing a car to a child.



That is not correct, as what I did was compared stealing with stealing.

One kind of stealing compared to another kind of stealing.

In stealing it does not matter so much as to the item one steals as it is still stealing.

Steal a child or steal a car or steal money or steal anything makes the person into a thief, or as in Child Support and Custody laws it makes one into the receiver of stolen children and of stolen money.

The point of using the "car" is to emphasize "value" as in stealing a car then the thief goes to jail, but to steal a child from their parent and then the parents are required to pay the thieves.

The "car" is a demonstration that our twisted society and inhuman laws give greater value to property as in "cars" as being above the value of children.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> The "car" is a demonstration that our twisted society and inhuman laws give greater value to property as in "cars" as being above the value of children.


 then lets look at the car, Your car specifically.

 you have one.
 You put tags on it, (illegal as they may be)
 You put gas in it when its empty. 
 You make sure it has tires
 You change the oil.

 Had you given your CHILD even 1/10 of the care and concern you give your car, we wouldnt be having this conversation in the first place.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> Once again, JP Cusick lie's.



Just FYI, is that I sincerely believe in truthfulness and being open and I am the one that gives out information and no one else is doing such.

I am the one that has consistently been open and honest in all of my postings and in my dealings and yet you jump at calling me as "lie" and that defect is only in your perspective.

I do not lie.

It is true that my original posting was incorrect but the blog was new and the bugs had not yet been worked out.

Now the comments are discontinued so does that make it not a lie now?


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Just FYI, is that I sincerely believe in truthfulness and being open and I am the one that gives out information and no one else is doing such.
> 
> I am the one that has consistently been open and honest in all of my postings and in my dealings and yet you jump at calling me as "lie" and that defect is only in your perspective.
> 
> I do not lie.
> 
> It is true that my original posting was incorrect but the blog was new and the bugs had not yet been worked out.
> 
> Now the comments are discontinued so does that make it not a lie now?


why would you want to discontinue the comments? 
 I would think that a large gathering of people all posting positive feedback to your campaign would be beneficial.

 or, do you think that once your mental illness is known, people wont be positive in their feedback?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> why would you want to discontinue the comments?
> I would think that a large gathering of people all posting positive feedback to your campaign would be beneficial.
> 
> or, do you think that once your mental illness is known, people wont be positive in their feedback?



As I said in the first place - it is not my rule as the Baltimore Sun told me there were to be no comments for any blog including mine.

FYI, I did tell them that I would prefer to have comments but they did not reply to my preference.

It is NOT my rule as it is their blogs.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> As I said in the first place - it is not my rule as the Baltimore Sun told me there were to be no comments for any blog including mine.
> 
> FYI, I did tell them that I would prefer to have comments but they did not reply to my preference.
> 
> It is NOT my rule as it is their blogs.


In this case, I can not continue to hound you on the choice of no comments.

 carry on.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> In this case, I can not continue to hound you on the choice of no comments.
> 
> carry on.



Do not you start being magnanimous now, as then I will not know what to do with you.

Lets not go too far with this as it was just a simple mistake.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Do not you start being magnanimous now, as then I will not know what to do with you.
> 
> Lets not go too far with this as it was just a simple mistake.


Dont worry, you have enough already to keep me busy.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> It is true that my original posting was incorrect
> but the blog was new and the bugs had not yet been worked out.
> Now the comments are discontinued so does that make it not a lie now?



I find it odd that Baltimore Sun would put this statement. Where voters make comments at. 



> COMMENT BOARD DISCLAIMER:  *Candidates reserve the right to remove any user or user's comments that are identified as inappropriate. *Examples of these types of infractions include but are not limited to comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, racist, sexist, and homophobic or use other offensive terminology. Additionally, comments that are solicitations and/or advertising spam or include attacks that celebrate the death, injury or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise are prohibited.



I find it odd that some Candidates don't have their comment section disable.

I happen to think it's just like any other blog site. 
Where you can either, Allow comments or Disable comments.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> And what exactly should happen when the child isn't stolen from the NCP when the NCP doesn't want them and threw them out like trash?



All parent - all parents do want their own children with no exceptions, and to believe otherwise is never true and never accurate. 

The ONLY only reason any parent (Dad or Mom) is separated from their own child is because of some form or pressure or force or coercion or trickery nut never by free choice. 

I realize many custodial parents preach such mean ideas against the separated parents - but the custodial is the one holding the stolen child.

If the custodial were decent and honest then it is the job of custody to ensure that each child has a healthy and functional relationship with the separated parent.  



LusbyMom said:


> Kinda like what you did with your son.. you ran from him.



No, I had a failed marriage and a ruined home and I left that as a failure, and I thought I was leaving my son in a safe and healthy environment.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> then lets look at the car, Your car specifically.
> 
> you have one.
> You put tags on it, (illegal as they may be)
> You put gas in it when its empty.
> You make sure it has tires
> You change the oil.
> 
> Had you given your CHILD even 1/10 of the care and concern you give your car, we wouldnt be having this conversation in the first place.



Yes, but I have custody of my car (truck) and having custody then I expect to buy the gas and tags and all.

And it would be worse if I stole your car and then got a Court order demanding you to pay the gas and all so that I could keep your car.

That is what the Child Support and Custody laws do - the child is stolen and then demand cash from the parent that got robbed to pay for the upkeep of the child, so then the custodial can commit adultery without the burden of paying to feed their own children.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Yes, but I have custody of my car (truck) and having custody then I expect to buy the gas and tags and all.
> 
> And it would be worse if I stole your car and then got a Court order demanding you to pay the gas and all so that I could keep your car.
> 
> That is what the Child Support and Custody laws do - the child is stolen and then demand cash from the parent that got robbed to pay for the upkeep of the child, so then the custodial can commit adultery without the burden of paying to feed their own children.


 but the child was not stolen in your case, you left, ran off, decided you didnt want to support him.
  the child was not stolen from you, you abandoned him.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> but the child was not stolen in your case, you left, ran off, decided you didnt want to support him.
> the child was not stolen from you, you abandoned him.



But you are leaving out the huge factor of the big-daddy govt that dictates Custody and Child Support laws regardless of what I did or what is done by any parent.

My marriage failed and it was the law that jumped into the middle of my family as into all families where the law has no business.

It is a legality as in legally stolen, so unlike a car thief that has to avoid the law, the child thievery is the law as is the thieving Child Support.

You just want to blame me and I take my own blame, but the State laws violating my family and every family is blame that goes to the State.

Even if your kind see me as an evil rotten parent then that still does not give you nor the State the right to steal my child nor my money.

In a healthy case a parent can leave and later can come back, but the laws violate that process.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> All parent - all parents do want their own children with no exceptions, and to believe otherwise is never true and never accurate.
> 
> The ONLY only reason any parent (Dad or Mom) is separated from their own child is because of some form or pressure or force or coercion or trickery nut never by free choice.
> 
> I realize many custodial parents preach such mean ideas against the separated parents - but the custodial is the one holding the stolen child.
> 
> If the custodial were decent and honest then it is the job of custody to ensure that each child has a healthy and functional relationship with the separated parent.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I had a failed marriage and a ruined home and I left that as a failure, and I thought I was leaving my son in a safe and healthy environment.



Why did your marriage fail? A marriage and being a parent are two different things. Just because a marriage fails does not mean your relationship with your child automatically fails. It is what you make it and you and others run and choose to not have that relationship with the child.


----------



## LusbyMom

VoteJP said:


> But you are leaving out the huge factor of the big-daddy govt that dictates Custody and Child Support laws regardless of what I did or what is done by any parent.
> 
> My marriage failed and it was the law that jumped into the middle of my family as into all families where the law has no business.
> 
> It is a legality as in legally stolen, so unlike a car thief that has to avoid the law, the child thievery is the law as is the thieving Child Support.
> 
> You just want to blame me and I take my own blame, but the State laws violating my family and every family is blame that goes to the State.
> 
> Even if your kind see me as an evil rotten parent then that still does not give you nor the State the right to steal my child nor my money.
> 
> In a healthy case a parent can leave and later can come back, but the laws violate that process.



The law didn't steal your child. You abandoned him. You should have supported your child without the courts having to step in. But you are so high and mighty that you didn't want to support him so you left. Because money was more important to you then your own flesh and blood.


----------



## Geruch

*JP Cusick, Wants to totally remove Child Support*



VoteJP said:


> But you are leaving out the huge factor of the big-daddy govt that dictates Custody and Child Support laws regardless of what I did or what is done by any parent.
> 
> My marriage failed and it was the law that jumped into the middle of my family as into all families where the law has no business.
> 
> It is a legality as in legally stolen, so unlike a car thief that has to avoid the law, the child thievery is the law as is the thieving Child Support.
> 
> You just want to blame me and I take my own blame, but the State laws violating my family and every family is blame that goes to the State.
> 
> Even if your kind see me as an evil rotten parent then that,
> 
> *still does not give you nor the State the right to steal my child nor my money.*
> 
> In a healthy case a parent can leave and later can come back, but the laws violate that process.


 It may feel better to blame the State for the decision you made on your own. Maybe it helps you to justify what you did and why.

Would you have financially supported your own son, if there were no such thing as child support? 

Exactly how did the law violate your family? 

When:
1. Your wife divorce you, according to what you said.
2. You left the State of Maryland for approx. 9 years - I believe to avoid paying child support.
3. You was in the arrears $27,000. Which was never paid.
4. Most likely if and when you did pay. It was very little.  

So much easier to blame the state. You seem to think that, 
As adults we should never be held accountable for our own action.  

You made it clear before. You believe that No Non-Custodial Parent should pay child support. That Custodial parents, welfare, churches, extended family should provide all. Right there shows your mind set. Leaving the Non-Custodial parent to provide nothing. 

What you want isn't Reform in any sense of the word.

JP Cusick, What you want to do is a "Totally Remove Child Support and Custody Laws."

For you it's so much better for Welfare to provide all then to have both parents supporting their own children. It's not meant to be use so that Non-Custodial parents wouldn't have to support their own children.

I think your just a person that doesn't like being told what to do. Your come across like some kind of know it all and that your the only one right. and everyone else is wrong.

You even said that, If parents can't work it out. Their have too. 
You have the, I could careless attitude.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> The law didn't steal your child. You abandoned him. You should have supported your child without the courts having to step in. But you are so high and mighty that you didn't want to support him so you left. Because money was more important to you then your own flesh and blood.



It really is the law that defines me breaking-up with my wife as an "abandonment" and as "desertion" because the laws are improperly in the family break-up business.

If the laws were not violating the families and the parents then there would be a far better equation than the trashing of families as we have going on now. 

And I did leave my son supported, and he was supported very well indeed.

The same is true for all separated parents in that all the children have everything they need - only exceptions are in cases where the children are being abused or neglected by the custodial.



LusbyMom said:


> Why did your marriage fail?



Because I acted like an idiot, and thought like a fool, and was a Man that did not appreciate my blessings.



LusbyMom said:


> A marriage and being a parent are two different things. Just because a marriage fails does not mean your relationship with your child automatically fails. It is what you make it and you and others run and choose to not have that relationship with the child.



That is a common untruth that custodial parents spew out, and I do find that more Women believe that trash than does Men.

The parenting is dependent on the two parents in some realistic union and not divided.

That use to mean "marriage" but the State has already so violated the religious institution of "marriage" that it no longer binds the real parents to their children.

As it is now, and as "LusbyMom" describes above, claiming that a parent can still be a parent while separated from their children just by paying the thieving Child Support cash as a ransom payment to the legal kidnappers, and that needs to be stopped.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> You made it clear before. You believe that No Non-Custodial Parent should pay child support. That Custodial parents, welfare, churches, extended family should provide all. Right there shows your mind set. Leaving the Non-Custodial parent to provide nothing.
> 
> JP Cusick, What you want to do is a "Totally Removal of Child Support and Custody Laws."



That would allow space for parental reconciliation which is the best ideal.

The entire point of Public Assistance dating back through millenniums is in that the poor and underclasses need to be assisted in preserving their social structure because they are the foundation to everything else.

Link "Global Poverty" HERE, and Link Deuteronomy 24:12-22


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> The parenting is dependent on the two parents in some realistic union and not divided.



So before the state got involved, before you got separated or divorced, before you stopped seeing your son because your wife wouldn't let you take him to the movies, you and your first wife were, by your definition, parenting.

You then left the household.  You separated yourself from your wife.  At that point, there was no involvement of the state, no legal separation, no legal divorce. So by your own definition, you were the one who broke the bond not only of marriage, but also the act of parenting.  The state was not involved.  The state did not meddle in your marriage or parenting.  The state did not get involved until it was asked to by you or your wife.  Up until the point that the state was involved, it was a religious matter, started by the act of you separating from your wife.

Also, according to your writings, marriage is a religious institution and you broke the bonds of religious marriage before the state got involved and you, YOU  broke your vows to your wife and to God.

There is nothing you can say to defend this because I am using your logic and your definitions.  Your own case disproves what you profess.  If there is proof that what you profess can sometimes be wrong, then what you say is NOT true OR accurate.  You seek to define the truth of this issue by denying the FACTS.  This makes you to be what you constantly claim you are not.

You are a LIAR.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



thunderclapp said:


> So before the state got involved, before you got separated or divorced, before you stopped seeing your son because your wife wouldn't let you take him to the movies, you and your first wife were, by your definition, parenting.
> 
> You then left the household.  You separated yourself from your wife.  At that point, there was no involvement of the state, no legal separation, no legal divorce. So by your own definition, you were the one who broke the bond not only of marriage, but also the act of parenting.  The state was not involved.  The state did not meddle in your marriage or parenting.  The state did not get involved until it was asked to by you or your wife.  Up until the point that the state was involved, it was a religious matter, started by the act of you separating from your wife.



The thing that you conveniently leave out is that the State laws were around before I got married, and so it was for me back then just as it is for any parents today that the State laws are waiting to pounce and attack the parents as like a snake hiding in the grass or some predator seeking its prey.

Long before I separated from my wife then just as any other parents today - we all know about the threats of the law and as such the law is involved long before any child is conceived. The laws are threatening everyone before they get married and before any parents have children and the State laws are not some placid outsider that needs to be invited in.

Many people today, as has been for many long decades, do not get married just because of the threats of the inhuman laws. 

So the State is already involved in every family's business long before any thing happens, and your claim above is just filthy rubbish.



thunderclapp said:


> Also, according to your writings, marriage is a religious institution and you broke the bonds of religious marriage before the state got involved and you, YOU  broke your vows to your wife and to God.
> 
> There is nothing you can say to defend this because I am using your logic and your definitions.  Your own case disproves what you profess.  If there is proof that what you profess can sometimes be wrong, then what you say is NOT true OR accurate.  You seek to define the truth of this issue by denying the FACTS.  This makes you to be what you constantly claim you are not.
> 
> You are a LIAR.



It hurts me that you feel this way about me, and about the issues.

I have always wanted and expected so much better from you and yet I keep getting disappointed.

If your intention where only honorable then this would not be - but no.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> It hurts me that you feel this way about me, and about the issues.
> 
> I have always wanted and expected so much better from you and yet I keep getting disappointed.
> 
> If your intention where only honorable then this would not be - but no.


You gonna strike him or shoot him?

 you can just add it to your transgressions credit card that you pay off on your judgement day. ( I suspect your balance is getting pretty big)


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> If your intention where only honorable then this would not be - but no.



I don't think honor has anything to do with it.  My intention, in this message, was to give you my analysis of the issue according to logic and your definitions.

My overall intention, as has been since I first started participating in these discussions, is to publicize ALL of your ideas, personalities and contradictions in character to as many people as possible so that there is more for people to see than the 2 or 3 endlessly repeated mottos that you want to be known for.

It is definitely not my intention to impress, befriend or have you expect anything of me but to put your own words to the test by reminding you and everyone else what you have said earlier or elsewhere that contradicts what you say or shows that you are not qualified to be a spokesman for healthy marriages, good parenting, horses, black people, muslims, christians, biblical interpretation or prophet of God like you obviously imagine yourself to be.

And maybe sometimes I go overboard and ridicule you too strongly, but I have never spouted a desire or backhanded threat to fill you full of shotgun pellets or smack you in the face while claiming to be a peaceful man as you have done recently.

And as for the personal email that you sent to me where you said 





> "Your comment on the blog was deleted because it stated inaccurate information."


 Yes I made a mistake in saying you ran and lost 3 times (guess I was being psychic) but that was a flimsy excuse for deleting it.  You could have corrected me on your blog and I would have apologized.  But instead, you chickened out and deleted not only my comment, but also the other comments before turning off all comments.  My guess is that you feel more people will see your blog than these forums and you want to get a safe, fresh start on your new blog and didn't want anyone to see what people are actually saying about you.

I am quite proud of my private collection of "The Writings of James P. Cusick, Sr.".


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> Many people today, as has been for many long decades, do not get married just because of the threats of the inhuman laws.



In the words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."  acting as the spokesman for people contemplating marriage.

My stand is that people who really WANT to get married are usually madly in love and don't even consider that they will end up divorced.  That's why they say "I Do." to "not until death will we part".  If anyone is thinking about getting divorced when considering marriage, I would say that they are not afraid of paying child support or alimony, I would say that they are just afraid of making and keeping a commitment.

What did you mean when you said "I Do"?  Were you thinking that you would get divorced?  Were you afraid of having to pay child support for your son?  I bet you weren't even thinking that would ever happen. If you did, and you had doubts about the permanency of your marriage and the sacredness of your vows, then you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> You gonna strike him or shoot him?



Surely we could be more imaginative with that one, as like maybe cut-off his head or hang him from a tree?

Do we not learn from TV?


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> Surely we could be more imaginative with that one, as like maybe cut-off his head or hang him from a tree?
> 
> Do we not learn from TV?


see, now Im pissed.
 One poster gets to get shot, one gets to have his head chopped off or hung from a tree.
 Me?
 I just get beatch slapped by some old cripple dude that thinks he wants to be a governor of a state.

 you are not showing me proper respect. 

 Just saying.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



thunderclapp said:


> My stand is that people who really WANT to get married are usually madly in love and don't even consider that they will end up divorced.  That's why they say "I Do." to "not until death will we part".  If anyone is thinking about getting divorced when considering marriage, I would say that they are not afraid of paying child support or alimony, I would say that they are just afraid of making and keeping a commitment.



It does not change anything if some people are afraid to get married because of threats from the law, or if others get married unaware of the threats from the law, because the point is that the law is corrupt and violating families and ruining marriages.

Duh.



thunderclapp said:


> then you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.



*Off with his head!*


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That would allow space for parental reconciliation which is the best ideal.


Your confirming what I said to be true? You do what to "Totally Removal of Child Support and Custody Laws."

There's no laws saying a married couple or non married couple can't reconcile. 
I have no clue to what point your trying to make, if any.



VoteJP said:


> The entire point of Public Assistance dating back through millenniums is in that the poor and underclasses need to be assisted in preserving their social structure because they are the foundation to everything else.


I feel you want to use public assistance as a easy way out. Non-custodial/ separated parents 
will feel they shouldn't have to support their own child/ren. 

Yes, public assistance is for the needy when they qualify. Most would agree that it's usually a single mother that's getting a welfare check. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about people that get food stamps, energy assistance, housing, section 8, daycare vouchers. As it's all base on your income. 

A family ( married couple living together with child/ren) or a family unit could get food stamps, etc. if they qualify. 
So could a single person that's working or a single person with a child/ren. All depends on your income, rent, eletric.

When I talk about poor folks, I'm talking about the working poor.  
Not the lazy poor that's able to fine a job but they rather not. 



VoteJP said:


> Link "Global Poverty" HERE


That site speak about poverty outside of the USA. What's Your Point?



VoteJP said:


> Link Deuteronomy 24:12-22



You have your very own interpation of the bible. What's Your Point?


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> It does not change anything if some people are afraid to get married because of threats from the law, or if others get married unaware of the threats from the law, because the point is that the law is corrupt and violating families and ruining marriages. Duh.


You really do live in your own fantasy world. 

All of this is just, "Your Opinion". Nothing more then that.  

What are the threats, Exactly? Love to hear it.  

What Thunderclapp said is the Truth and You Can't Deny It.



VoteJP said:


> *Off with his head!*


More of your childish nonsense.


----------



## thunderclapp

*A point in every direction is no point at all.*



James P Cusick Sr said:


> It does not change anything if some people are afraid to get married because of threats from the law, or if others get married unaware of the threats from the law, because the point is that the law is corrupt and violating families and ruining marriages.
> 
> Duh.



You just ignored what you said here...





James P Cusick Sr said:


> Many people today, as has been for many long decades, do not get married just because of the threats of the inhuman laws.



That point was that the laws keep people from wanting to get married.    You are nothing but a  noisy gong, a clanging cymbal.  Most of your responses fail to  directly answer any of the questions you are asked.  If the question is a challenge for you, you respond as if a different question was asked or as if you don't remember what you said first.  You speak with very limited substance.  Not a good representation of your self education that you think is better than a formal education.  





			
				James P Cusick Sr said:
			
		

> "My own self education is far superior than any formal education." http://forums.somd.com/religion/209087-message-jp.html#post4326006





James P Cusick Sr said:


> *Off with his head!*



I guess I left you with a loss for words.

Is that your final answer? 

Under different circumstances I would laugh with you at that line.   I usually get when you are being humorous.  But you can't be respected when you respond to a question with an attempt of humor and don't follow it up with a real answer.  It really makes you look very childish.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> see, now Im pissed.
> One poster gets to get shot, one gets to have his head chopped off or hung from a tree.
> Me?
> I just get beatch slapped by some old cripple dude that thinks he wants to be a governor of a state.
> 
> you are not showing me proper respect.
> 
> Just saying.



That is very funny, and yet very true too.

But now I see no way to reconcile it since the deed is done.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> That site speak about poverty outside of the USA. What's Your Point?
> 
> You have your very own interpation of the bible. What's Your Point?



Both the reference websites were to give you a demonstration that Public Assistance and impoverished families are a part of the normal human condition throughout history and throughout the entire world, and so the claims of "deadbeat" parents is just a slander and a fraud to support the ignorant thievery of the Child Support and Custody laws. 

The laws do not stand up as being with any credibility when they are put under honest scrutiny.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> It does not change anything if some people are afraid to get married because of threats from the law, or if others get married unaware of the threats from the law, because the point is that the law is corrupt and violating families and ruining marriages.





thunderclapp said:


> What did you mean when you said "I Do"?  Were you thinking that you would get divorced?  Were you afraid of having to pay child support for your son?  I bet you weren't even thinking that would ever happen.



I'm sorry, I didn't hear what your answer to this was.  Can you repeat the answer?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> What are the threats, Exactly? Love to hear it.



The State laws' particular threats against every parent is that the law will steal the parent's children, and will slander the parent to their children, and then the law will steal the parent's property and paycheck and their livelihood and call it as "Child Support" just to subsidize the adulteries of the custodial.

Your kind might pretend not to know it, but it is known.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> And I did leave my son supported, and he was supported very well indeed.
> 
> The parenting is dependent on the two parents in some realistic union and not divided.


Two diametrically opposed statements - in the same post, no less.

At one point, you appear to understand that parenting is a *two* person job.  But at the other, you minimize the fact that your son did not have two parents (at least, not until his step-dad came on the scene, thankfully) due to your easy willingness to leave him.  Regardless how wealthy the family was or how many things he was provided, I bet if you asked him today, he would have given all that _stuff_ for your attention.  (Perhaps you have already asked him, but I don't recall you stating so publicly.)   




VoteJP said:


> But now I see no way to reconcile it since the deed is done.


Not the first time you've found yourself in that position, huh?

I'm sure you can find some way to divert accountability... simply blame the evil law that forces you to make asinine statements on the Internet.  That'll get 'em.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Both the reference websites were to give you a demonstration that Public Assistance and impoverished families are a part of the normal human condition throughout history and throughout the entire world,


 Yea, there's poor people all over the world. Some worse off then others. 
Depends on what country you live in. So tell me something I don't know. 

What does that have to do with paying child support? 



VoteJP said:


> and so the claims of "deadbeat" parents is just a slander and a fraud to support the ignorant thievery of the Child Support and Custody laws.The laws do not stand up as being with any credibility when they are put under honest scrutiny.


We live in the USA in the State of Maryland. Were dealing with Government mandated & State laws. 

The legal term would be Disobeying a Court Order to pay child support. 
There maybe a good reason why "some" non-custodial get behind. 
Like a sudden job lost, a accident, the person died. That could be worked out.

Looks like to me your looking for a easy way out. 
Like I said before below. 


Geruch said:


> JP Cusick, What you want to do is a "Totally Remove Child Support and Custody Laws."


I do believe that my statement above is pretty close to the way your thinking. 
Since you said this, 





 VoteJP said:


> *The children do not need the child support, *
> all the children need is their God given separated parent
> and then the real loving care will come naturally.


So your saying a separated parent can only love and  care about their own child is if their not paying child support? 
Here I thought the real love, caring, came naturally when your child is born. Guess it doesn't for some.



VoteJP said:


> That would allow space for parental reconciliation which is the best ideal.


Are you saying, That removing Child Support and Custody Laws. 
Would allow parents to reconcile? If that's what your saying, How So?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> We live in the USA in the State of Maryland. Were dealing with Government mandated & State laws.
> 
> The legal term would be Disobeying a Court Order to pay child support.
> There maybe a good reason why "some" non-custodial get behind.
> Like a sudden job lost, a accident, the person died. That could be worked out.
> 
> Looks like to me your looking for a easy way out.



The law is just thieves and the parents do not really owe anything in the first place.

It is collecting money which there is no rightful claim to in the first place.

And as you say the laws does indeed rob from parents that are dead-broke.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> The law is just thieves and the parents do not really owe anything in the first place.


 let me try to understand this.
 Parents owe nothing? have no responsibility?

 so, you can plop out a baby and just put it out with the trash?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> let me try to understand this.
> Parents owe nothing? have no responsibility?
> 
> so, you can plop out a baby and just put it out with the trash?



The parents owe nothing to thieves, as when you steal their child from the parent then the parent owes the thieves nothing.

Is that not clear?

Paying ransom money to kidnappers is not a true debt.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> Paying ransom money to kidnappers is not a true debt.



If if was ransom money, the one paying the child support would get the child back after paying it.  You need a dictionary, and grammar lessons,  Mr. Gong.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> The parents owe nothing to thieves, as when you steal their child from the parent then the parent owes the thieves nothing.
> 
> Is that not clear?
> 
> Paying ransom money to kidnappers is not a true debt.


 nope not clear.
 just sounds like you are trying hard to justify your lack of responsibility.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The law is just thieves and the parents do not really owe anything in the first place.
> It is collecting money which there is no rightful claim to in the first place.
> And as you say the laws does indeed rob from parents that are dead-broke.


Hey Now, First of all, I didn't say, The laws robs the parents that are dead-broke. 
That's the way you think, I only know what I consider dead broke.
I'm not sure what you consider dead broke. What's you definition of dead broke?
One thing is for certain, A truthful person can always prove that their dead
broke and what the reason is. They can often get their payments modified. 

I know darn well you have to be a  few months behind before the courts will do anything. If someone locates some where outside of Maryland and travels state to state. Their usually harder to fine. I don't think much effort goes into finding them. Unless you have both their SS# and their not working under the table. Then you might have a chance of locating the other parent. But not always. There still is only 50/50 chance the person will be located. 

Well your looking at it all wrong, I'll tell you. Now listen here. 

You make baby when married. You make baby when not married. Both parents are happy to provide for the child.  Then all of the sudden out of the blue BOOM, somebody cheated and the parents split up and divorce. Oh what a mess. But keep in mine that both love the child/ren. Even though the parents do divorce both parents should keep supporting the child/ren.  Because they love their child/ren very much. They want what's best for their child/ren. 

Problem isn't the law, because if you would have straighten up and stand by your wife. Instead you ran away. So she divorce you. This is what happens. Just think, If you and your ex was willing to work out the problems. Maybe the out come would have been different. You wouldn't had to pay child support. Now would you. 

In my world life isn't always fair. Sometimes we have to do something we don't wanna do. 
That's all apart of being a adult. Isn't live grand when your on your own.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> You bring your nasty self to my house and you do not have any real business then I will give you some 12 gauge pellets in your gut.



Now, now, Jimmy, remember what you said? ...



> "*There are some simple yet intense hurt feelings that can turn a person into a suicidal or homicidal maniac* because our human feelings are very powerful in our bodies and* most people can control their emotions* to different degrees and shaded temperaments while rage is when the intense feeling(s) become overwhelming, and just by recognizing rage in ourselves and or in others then the rage can be calmed or dealt with and not fought against. *A person in rage might look forceful and appear as threatening but rage is always defensive and acts offensive*."  "We need to confront the real issue and* not continue arguing or fighting against varied topics.*" J. P. Cusick, A Guide To Codependency: Making The Condition Understandable To Anyone Who Wants To Know



How about you start practicing what you preach?
Deal with it.  Right, Jimmy?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



thunderclapp said:


> If if was ransom money, the one paying the child support would get the child back after paying it.  You need a dictionary, and grammar lessons,  Mr. Gong.



That is true in the usual kidnapping process but the Child Support and Custody laws are Govt backed systems of legalized kidnapping where the Child Support ransom is continuously extorted from the separated parents and the parents do not get their children returned to them even when they do pay the Child Support as ransom payments.

The fact that the thieves do not give back the kidnapped children after receiving the extorted Child Support ransom money does not make it any less of a kidnapping.

It is a family break-up system - under the thieving force of law.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



LusbyMom said:


> * You gotta pay child support *



A new News story in the Enterprise with the real story in the sub-plot of Child Support and Custody driving a father into ruin and threatening the Mom's life.

See the last sentence:
Murder plot case ends in assault plea, jail sentence

The Dad is foolish and unintelligent, but we know it is the law which created the circumstances.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The Dad is foolish and unintelligent, but we know it is the law which created the circumstances.


Your election could be a big win for lawbreakers everywhere.

Caught selling drugs?  Blame the law!  Arrested for looting?  Blame the law!  Parking in the fire lane?  Hit and run?  Indecent exposure?  Sexual harassment in the workplace?  Armed robbery?  Burning without a permit?  Littering?  Mugging?  Pulling tags off pillows in the store?  *Blame the law!*  (Which law is irrelevant... CS is preferred since it is surely the most evil law of them all.)   

Society's scum could have a field day... if only they could somehow band together to get Jimmy  into office.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> The "car" is a demonstration that our twisted society and inhuman laws give greater value to property as in "cars" as being above the value of children.


I'm curious to go back to this for a minute.

In your demonstration, which is admittedly a stroke of genius, there remain some incongruences.  Such as:

Are the car's owner and the thief supposed to know each other before the theft, as two parents do?

Are the owner and thief supposed to be in an amicable, even loving relationship before the theft, as two parents always are?

Do each, the owner and thief, willingly build half the car knowing full well of the obligations and responsibilities that will go into the car's upkeep before the theft?

Is the owner allowed to visit and share use of the car following the theft, as a non-custodial is allowed to do with their children?

Does a car have regular, recurring needs as does a child?  Does it need a new paint job every few weeks as a child needs new clothing?  Will it perform its job less well if not upgraded, similar to a child being left behind without proper education?  Will it deteriorate without gas, as a child will die without food?

Can you cite any example in the history of the world anywhere where someone was held morally and socially culpable for the care of an inanimate object, such as a car, on the same level as another human being?

Like I said, aside from those handful of issues, that's a great example you've got there.  I think you should make a billboard to post in St. Mary's telling people how their children are equivalent to random various objects.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> I'm curious to go back to this for a minute.
> 
> In your demonstration, which is admittedly a stroke of genius, there remain some incongruences.  Such as:
> 
> Are the car's owner and the thief supposed to know each other before the theft, as two parents do?
> 
> Are the owner and thief supposed to be in an amicable, even loving relationship before the theft, as two parents always are?
> 
> Do each, the owner and thief, willingly build half the car knowing full well of the obligations and responsibilities that will go into the car's upkeep before the theft?
> 
> Is the owner allowed to visit and share use of the car following the theft, as a non-custodial is allowed to do with their children?
> 
> Does a car have regular, recurring needs as does a child?  Does it need a new paint job every few weeks as a child needs new clothing?  Will it perform its job less well if not upgraded, similar to a child being left behind without proper education?  Will it deteriorate without gas, as a child will die without food?
> 
> Can you cite any example in the history of the world anywhere where someone was held morally and socially culpable for the care of an inanimate object, such as a car, on the same level as another human being?
> 
> Like I said, aside from those handful of issues, that's a great example you've got there.  I think you should make a billboard to post in St. Mary's telling people how their children are equivalent to random various objects.



That is as about as most that anyone can miss-a-point as I have ever seen.

The point was about "value" and "worth" and nothing less.

If you want to give me a car then yes I will take it even if it is a junk car and I will ask nothing from you.

If it is a street legal car with papers then I will thank you and no strings attached.

If it is a junker then the auto junk yards will send out a tow truck and pick up the car and pay me $50-$100 and its a deal.  

The same is true of a baby or a young child as I would be happy to take full custody and with Social Services supervision if need be, and I will actively resist any Child Support from the parents.

It is a matter of value and esteem and nothing else because both a car and a child have great value even if other people do not value their own.

The nonsense you listed above is a silly mindless equation.

1) It does not matter if the car owner and thief or the child's parents knew each other or not since the one taking the car or the child is the one taking the valuable.

2) The car owner and thief being old friends as the two parents were once lovers makes no different to the value of the car or of the child.

3) The owner and the thief first shared the car as two parent both shared their child does not change the reality that the one taking the car or taking the child is the one taking the valuable.

4) Visitation is not real parenting and very short time limits and it is conditional to the ransom payment, as in the parent fails to pay the Child Support extortion then the visitation ends regardless of the denials otherwise.

5) The car does need regular maintenance and often times a car will cost more than it cost for a child. But paying upkeep on a car is viewed as paying for a valuable while children are wrongfully viewed to be a burden on the custodial.

6) Nobody would ever require car-support as done with Child-Support because the car is regarded as having intrinsic value while the child is regarded as a burden and a liability when they are not. 

============================

The point of "value" is that the whoever gets the car as with whoever gets the child is not harmed but are profited and made richer.

The children are valuable and therefore the custodial is enriched by having custody, and the one damaged and that suffered loss are those parents that have lost their child(ren).


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> That is as about as most that anyone can miss-a-point as I have ever seen.


I've seen some doozies.  I'm looking at a pretty good one right this moment.   



> If it is a junker then the auto junk yards will send out a tow truck and pick up the car and pay me $50-$100 and its a deal.
> 
> The same is true of a baby or a young child


So you're willing to sell the children you consider "junkers"?  How much do you think a junker child would pull in for you?  Do you consider making this an official part of your platform?  I bet people would love to hear this one.  Second billboard idea!


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> I've seen some doozies.  I'm looking at a pretty good one right this moment.
> 
> So you're willing to sell the children you consider "junkers"?  How much do you think a junker child would pull in for you?  Do you consider making this an official part of your platform?  I bet people would love to hear this one.  Second billboard idea!



You are clearly taking my words out of context to give a different message, but even in your deceit you are wrong, so I will run with your bait.

It is the plain simple truth that babies and children can be sold readily, and a payment of $50-$100 would be a cheap price because people will pay far more than that to buy children.

The very notion that the "Custodial" (child-thief) does not want to feed and house their own stolen child, and they have to be paid the Child Support extorted by the force of law because the children are a burden - is surely the biggest bunch of rubbish and nonsense this world has ever perpetrated.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> You are clearly taking my words out of context to give a different message


If you don't wish to be caught in such traps, don't say such stupid things.   :shrug:

Like starting with such a bad basis for an argument as that stolen car example.  Most people apparently interpreted it in a way you did not like, but instead of replacing it with something more fitting, you continued poking and making the wound bigger.

Don't get upset at me because I point these things out.  (Although, I guess you weren't too upset because you did not express a desire to shoot or punch me or chop off my head.   )


----------



## VoteJP

hvp05 said:


> Like starting with such a bad basis for an argument as that stolen car example.  Most people apparently interpreted it in a way you did not like, but instead of replacing it with something more fitting, you continued poking and making the wound bigger.



The car analogy still stands as true and accurate and it drives the point very accurately.

Your claim of other people's interpretation is baseless.



hvp05 said:


> Don't get upset at me because I point these things out.  (Although, I guess you weren't too upset because you did not express a desire to shoot or punch me or chop off my head.



It is nothing personal as you simply do not deserve a slap or a shot or a head chopping at this time.

You are a head of the others.


----------



## Geruch

I wouldn't mine seeing some actually data. On how many non-custodial actually went to jail for non payment of child support in the State of Maryland. 

How far was they behind before being taken to court for non payment.
And would this be their first time, second time or what. 

You never did answer a question I ask. What's your definition of Deat Broke?


----------



## LusbyMom

Geruch said:


> I wouldn't mine seeing some actually data. On how many non-custodial actually went to jail for non payment of child support in the State of Maryland.
> *Not enough. Sit in a courtroom during child support court*
> 
> How far was they behind before being taken to court for non payment.
> And would this be their first time, second time or what. *Some go in as little as 6 months and others it takes a year of non payment. After 60 days they are suppose to lose their license but most of the time that doesn't happen either. Or a partial payment allows them to keep it. Even though the law says Once a license is suspended, the individual's license can only be reinstated if the individual pays the arrears in full, makes six (6) consecutive payments of the court ordered child support amount or if the individual provides documentation to support a claim of hardship.*
> 
> You never did answer a question I ask. What's your definition of Deat Broke? *His definition is if he has to pay a single dollar he is dead broke. Because he is a dead beat*


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing some actual data. On how many non-custodial actually went to jail for non payment of child support in the State of Maryland.
> 
> How far was they behind before being taken to court for non payment.
> And would this be their first time, second time or what.



The State keeps the prisoner info as top secret, and the State and County jails are ashamed of the truth.

Now-a-days the large number of parents in jail to extort the Child Support loot from their families as a Debtor's prisoner is outrageous, and the State can not see past the ignorant slanders that the fault is on the parents instead of the truth that the system is evil and inhuman.

I can give an eye witness report that all the parents in jail for Child Support are there because they can not pay the extortion.

How far behind in payments is irrelevant to the fact that the parents are pillaged and plundered and the parents in jail for a small amount or a large amount is still the same ignorant law.

And the parents being incarcerated three or four or more times is a denunciation of the unjust and barbaric law and not a testimony of guilt for the parents. 



Geruch said:


> What's your definition of Dead Broke?



In the case of Child Support putting parents into jail then the definition of "dead-broke" is not having enough money to pay the extortion.

A parent that can not pay-up to brute force thieves is dead broke.

If the thieving law demands $500 and the parent only has $499 then that means they are broke, and if some one gives the parent a dollar ($1) to get out of jail - then the law will take the parent's last dollar and leave the parent dead broke again.

This seems to define "dead-broke" in this case.

Being "dead-broke" means not having enough money to satisfy the thieves.

And the separated parents need to be able to support them self too.


----------



## Geruch

The most effective changes would have to be done at the Federal level, not at the state level. 
Since child support is Federally mandated. A state governor couldn't do away with child support. 
As if it never existed. That's not going to be possible.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> The most effective changes would have to be done at the Federal level, not at the state level.
> Since child support is Federally mandated. A state governor couldn't do away with child support.
> As if it never existed. That's not going to be possible.



It is true that I could not reform the laws on the federal level and I will have to buck the federal mandates, but I would be able to reform the system in Maryland and even here it would be a hard work and a tough fight and I am the one person that can get the job done.

Then the reforms in Maryland would affect the other States as they would have to adjust to the new rules.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I am the one person that can get the job done.


Hey JPCrazy, why do you keep saying that when you know you would need to get the majority of the legislature to agree with you?  You can not be a one-man show; government was not designed that way for a reason.  How will you try to get others on board - bribes, pork, coercion?



> Then the reforms in Maryland would affect the other States as they would have to adjust to the new rules.


Why is that?  Wait... because you said so.   

What if they don't "adjust"?  Will you run for governor in every one of the other 49 (or is it still 56?) states?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> Hey JPCrazy, why do you keep saying that when you know you would need to get the majority of the legislature to agree with you?  You can not be a one-man show; government was not designed that way for a reason.  How will you try to get others on board - bribes, pork, coercion?



I know I can not be a one-man-show but I am only one Man and I can only hold one office and so I must work within my own limitations.

Of course I will present proposals to the Legislature and I will have my mandate upon election, so with me as the Governor then the truth and reality of the horrible Child Support and Custody laws will be exposed and that will dictate the reforms.



hvp05 said:


> Why is that?  Wait... because you said so.
> What if they don't "adjust"?  Will you run for governor in every one of the other 49 (or is it still 56?) states?



The States function much like human being do.

As like when O'Malley brought gambling to Maryland then the States of Delaware and Virginia and Pennsylvania changed their laws accordingly.

That is a nasty example but it is accurate.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Of course I will present proposals to the Legislature and I will have my mandate upon election, so with me as the Governor then the truth and reality of the horrible Child Support and Custody laws will be exposed and that will dictate the reforms.


You've been talking here for years and have not "exposed" anything to your fellow posters but that you are apparently deranged.  How can you expect the debates with the GA to go any better?  You'll have to offer some pretty big kickbacks in order to get representatives on your side.



> The States function much like human being do.
> 
> As like when O'Malley brought gambling to Maryland then the States of Delaware and Virginia and Pennsylvania changed their laws accordingly.


So the other states will laugh their asses off at you also?   

Gambling brings in money, whereas you're talking about costing the state money - a lot of it.  Further, gambling is seen by most as a recreation and not an abomination, as cutting child support would be.


So you're now less than two months away from the Primary.  Do you have any plans for the next few weeks beyond the forums?


----------



## Geruch

There's at least 25 Threads of the SOS. Just more of the same. Different year.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> There's at least 25 Threads of the xxx. Just more of the same. Different year.



I really wish you would not use inappropriate language on here,

and just keep the dirty mouth at home.


----------



## hvp05

hvp05 said:


> So you're now less than two months away from the Primary.  Do you have any plans for the next few weeks beyond the forums?


I guess it's a secret.  Must be something good...


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> I guess it's a secret.  Must be something good...



I am not trying to be offensive, but the fact is that you post so much sarcasm and a repulsive humor that I really can not always determine when you are being sincere or just being trashy.

Otherwise I am happy to answer questions and to give out info and to share any News.



hvp05 said:


> So you're now less than two months away from the Primary.  Do you have any plans for the next few weeks beyond the forums?



The last few weeks are the most intense and it gets much more intense as the time gets closer, and now I can speak it from prior experience.

I have been intensely busy lately doing candidate questionnaires from all sorts of special interest groups, asking about the economy or social concerns or environment, and there have been some cool PAC groups that I had not known about. 

Now running for Governor than I get request and invites and questions from all over Maryland.

In a couple days I am to do a big radio interview for 3 stations combined, and we are to do it over the phone as I did not want to drive up to the station. It is to be recorded first so if I can get the airing time before it plays then I will broadcast it here.

Lots of the big groups (PACs) have branches all over MD, but a Governor candidate debate simply can not be mixed in with the smaller offices having their debates and forums so I have been turning down a lot of invites.

Both the League of Women Voters and The Washington Post (and other sources) are to release Voters Guides soon, and I have already done those more important questionnaires.

Actually my computer and the Internet are my power base since I can effectively communicate all over Maryland with anyone and exchange info and pictures and arrange all kinds of stuff so I am a modernized candidate indeed.


----------



## bcp

VoteJP said:


> I really wish you would not use inappropriate language on here,
> 
> and just keep the dirty mouth at home.


 I have to ask, What do I find more offensive, typing SOS, or constantly saying that you want to see children go without any food or housing.

 Hmmm tough one indeed.
 After consideration, I find that JPC is the one that is the most offensive POS that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

 You sir are without a doubt a subhuman self centered POS that deserves no more respect than what I might scrape from the bottom of my shoe.

 I pray that we meet one day and you find it in your interest to "strike" me, My retaliation will be for the children and the real parents, it will have nothing to do with the "strike".


----------



## LusbyMom

bcp said:


> I have to ask, What do I find more offensive, typing SOS, or constantly saying that you want to see children go without any food or housing.
> 
> Hmmm tough one indeed.
> After consideration, I find that JPC is the one that is the most offensive POS that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
> 
> You sir are without a doubt a subhuman self centered POS that deserves no more respect than what I might scrape from the bottom of my shoe.
> 
> I pray that we meet one day and you find it in your interest to "strike" me, My retaliation will be for the children and the real parents, it will have nothing to do with the "strike".



Okay why are you on here? Shouldn't you be enjoying the bikini lady?


----------



## bcp

did that all day.
 took the girl child and her friend that we took with us this trip and did the boardwalks, the beach etc... 
 Went over to an old friends house that lives about 45 minutes away and did dinner, then came back and got ready to leave tomorrow morning.

 since Im leaving at 6:30am in order to make the Cedar Island Ferry at noonish, I did all the hook up and everything tonight so I dont have to make noise in the morning when I pull out.

 Now Im kicking back for a few, drinking a beer and playing on here.


----------



## LusbyMom

bcp said:


> did that all day.
> took the girl child and her friend that we took with us this trip and did the boardwalks, the beach etc...
> Went over to an old friends house that lives about 45 minutes away and did dinner, then came back and got ready to leave tomorrow morning.
> 
> since Im leaving at 6:30am in order to make the Cedar Island Ferry at noonish, I did all the hook up and everything tonight so I dont have to make noise in the morning when I pull out.
> 
> Now Im kicking back for a few, drinking a beer and playing on here.



Wow Sounds like you have been busy... I would be asleep by now!  

Seems like you just got there and now it's time to pack up.


----------



## bcp

LusbyMom said:


> Wow Sounds like you have been busy... I would be asleep by now!
> 
> Seems like you just got there and now it's time to pack up.


 three nights here at Myrtle Beach, tomorrow heading to Hatteras for 3 nights then on to Beth Page to meet up with a bunch of other poster types for a great time. Great bunch of people, and some really decent parents that actually realize it takes more than just feeding a kid to raise them right.


----------



## LusbyMom

bcp said:


> three nights here at Myrtle Beach, tomorrow heading to Hatteras for 3 nights then on to Beth Page to meet up with a bunch of other poster types for a great time. Great bunch of people, and some really decent parents that actually realize it takes more than just feeding a kid to raise them right.



Still waiting on the man to make a decision about this weekend....  Safe travels to Hatteras... hope all those girls don't have to stop and pee at different times


----------



## bcp

I hope "the man" decides to come on down.


----------



## LusbyMom

bcp said:


> I hope "the man" decides to come on down.



I told him what you said before about "liking" him and now I think he is nervous


----------



## bcp

LusbyMom said:


> I told him what you said before about "liking" him and now I think he is nervous


I aint liking on him like that,, I can assure you of that.


----------



## hvp05

bcp said:


> took the girl child and her friend that we took with us this trip and did the boardwalks, the beach etc...


The difference between a good dad and a bad dad:  the good dad takes the kids with him when he leaves town.

Sounds like your family is having a great time!


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> I really wish you would not use inappropriate language on here, and just keep the dirty mouth at home.


You seen what you wanted to see. Not my fault you read more into it. 

I often use SOS, short for "Same Old Stuff". You didn't think about that, did you. Guess Not.
What I said was truth, It's the SOS ! Just a different year.
It's the same with "WTH", short for "What The Heck". 
I don't cuss as much as you think I do. So back off.


----------



## thunderclapp

Geruch said:


> You seen what you wanted to see. Not my fault you read more into it.
> 
> I often use SOS, short for "Same Old Stuff". You didn't think about that, did you. Guess Not.
> What I said was truth, It's the SOS ! Just a different year.
> It's the same with "WTH", short for "What The Heck".
> I don't cuss as much as you think I do. So back off.



LMFAO!!  That's a great response, Geruch!  I was Laughing My Fat Arms Off at that one!  WOW!  ( Waughing Out Woud!)


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> I am not trying to be offensive, but the fact is that you post so much sarcasm and a repulsive humor that I really can not always determine when you are being sincere or just being trashy.


Okay, sarcasm maybe (I _am_ one sarcastic SOB), but trashy?      You are definitely a Democrat because you are so easily offended at dumb things, even while you are able to promote reforms that would ruin this nation.





Geruch said:


> I don't cuss as much as you think I do. So back off.


   He's going to have to apologize now.  That means a half page of blathering without ever actually apologizing.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



bcp said:


> I have to ask, What do I find more offensive, typing xxx, or constantly saying that you want to see children go without any food or housing.



I do NOT say that I want any child to go without food or housing as I would never say such a thing.

What I have often said and still say is that the ONLY (the one and only) way for any child to go without food or housing is by the neglect or the abuse or the incompetence of the custodial and by no other means.

And I say if the custodial is allowing the child(ren) to be so deprived then the authorities do need to be informed and the children need to be removed from such an environment.



bcp said:


> I pray that we meet one day and you find it in your interest to "strike" me,



I make the promise now that I will not strike you if we meet.

The urge has long ago passed.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> It is true that I could not reform the laws on the federal level and I will have to buck the federal mandates, but I would be able to reform the system in Maryland and even here it would be a hard work and a tough fight and I am the one person that can get the job done. Then the reforms in Maryland would affect the other States as they would have to adjust to the new rules.
> 
> I know I can not be a one-man-show but I am only one Man and I can only hold one office and so I must work within my own limitations.  Of course I will present proposals to the Legislature and I will have my mandate upon election, so with me as the Governor then the truth and reality of the horrible Child Support and Custody laws will be exposed and that will dictate the reforms.
> 
> The States function much like human being do. As like when O'Malley brought gambling to Maryland then the States of Delaware and Virginia and Pennsylvania changed their laws accordingly. That is a nasty example but it is accurate.



With "gambliing" it brings money to the State of Maryland. 
Doing away with "child support" it doesn't bring money in, it takes away.
I doubt if any state would follow suit to what you think you can do. 

Many people have seen it time and time again where.  Parents will support their child as long as their in the same household. If and when a separation or divorce occurs. "Some" parents will act as if they don't have child/ren and "Will Not" help support them. "Some" parents don't come back into the picture until the child is close to 18. All because they didn't want to help support their own children.  That's exactly what you did. 

1. You don't believe women should work.
2. You expect custodial parent to provide all. 
3. You believe government should supply income.
4. You don't believe the other parents should pay child support.
5. But you think the other parent will do the right thing and help support their child.

So where does that leave society?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> With "gambliing" it brings money to the State of Maryland.
> Doing away with "child support" it doesn't bring money in, it takes away.
> I doubt if any state would follow suit to what you think you can do.
> 
> Many people have seen it time and time again where.  Parents will support their child as long as their in the same household. If and when a separation or divorce occurs. "Some" parents will act as if they don't have child/ren and "Will Not" help support them. "Some" parents don't come back into the picture until the child is close to 18. All because they didn't want to help support their own children.  That's exactly what you did.
> 
> 1. You don't believe women should work.
> 2. You expect custodial parent to provide all.
> 3. You believe government should supply income.
> 4. You don't believe the other parents should pay child support.
> 5. But you think the other parent will do the right thing and help support their child.
> 
> So where does that leave society?



Yes, my point is to improve society.

Make us into a better place.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> Yes, my point is to improve society. Make us into a better place.



Oh, Hog Wash !! You want to improve society. Yea Right  

Think about ways to bring jobs to Maryland. So people don't have to depend on a welfare check. 

Think about ways to reduce the crime rate. 

Think about ways to reduce taxes.

I can think of a lot more that would improve society. 

What you "Think your going to do". Isn't improvement, it's just the opposite.


----------



## This_person

VoteJP said:


> Yes, my point is to improve society.
> 
> Make us into a better place.


Jimmy, I know a way you could improve the overall intelligence level of the US and any Muslim country of your choice - move there from here.  Each country will be better off for it, and you would probably get most of your wishes.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> Yes, my point is to improve society.  Make us into a better place.


Hey Jimmy, you're basically a Muslim, so what would you do/say if you were under Sharia law?  In Sharia, the father is the de facto custodian; for the mother to be the custodian, the father has to sign over custody rights, and there are many requirements the mother must meet to remain honorable.  Also, fathers must pay child support to the time the baby is weaned (usually at about 6 months old).  And the ex-wife must be paid alimony for 3 menstrual cycles.

You complain about our laws being ungodly and evil, but in your beloved Islam, CS is *required*, even though only for a limited time.  If you were to go to a Muslim nation, would you tell them they need to change their laws?  I'd be really interested to see how that would go over.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> Hey Jimmy, you're basically a Muslim, so what would you do/say if you were under Sharia law?
> 
> If you were to go to a Muslim nation, would you tell them they need to change their laws?  I'd be really interested to see how that would go over.



An interesting idea would be as Governor to marry a true dedicated woman of Islam and have my Muslim bride as our first Lady of Maryland.

I am not moving over there so one could move over here. 

And I am still a Christian too.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> An interesting idea would be as Governor to marry a true dedicated woman of Islam and have my Muslim bride as our first Lady of Maryland.


Yeah, I know why you would want to do that...

> In Sharia law, a Muslim man is permitted up to four wives under the rules for nikah.





> And I am still a Christian too.


Unfortunately for you...

> The Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim man.


Looks like you need to brush up on your Sharia, Jimmy.  You are embarrassing your Muslim brothers.


Now, do you care to answer the question regarding CS in Muslim law?  I would think you would be outraged.   :shrug:


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> Yeah, I know why you would want to do that...
> 
> Unfortunately for you...
> 
> Looks like you need to brush up on your Sharia, Jimmy.  You are embarrassing your Muslim brothers.
> 
> Now, do you care to answer the question regarding CS in Muslim law?  I would think you would be outraged.   :shrug:



I do not want multiple wives as just one is all I would want, and my belief is that being monogamous as in one Man and one Woman is the right way and it is the best way for a healthy relationship.

If I were with a Muslim woman who happened to be of the Sharia faith then I would respect that, but she would have to understand and accept my differences too. 

I have no complaints against Sharia laws as it is their business and not mine.

And the great religion of Islam is divided into many sects just like Christianity and Buddhism and all religions have their different sections.

If I married a Catholic or Jewish or Mormon woman then I can respect her without becoming the same faith as she has, and if the woman wants her own style in a husband then I would not be the right Man for her match.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> If the woman wants her own style in a husband then I would not be the right Man for her match.



What the heck is that suppose to mean?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> What the heck is that suppose to mean?



That means if a Catholic woman wanted a Catholic husband then I would not be her right match.

If a Jewish woman wants a Jewish husband or a Mormon wants a Mormon or a Muslim Woman wants a Muslim Man then I would not be the right Man to match those Women.

But if a Woman of any religion or beliefs wanted to be with me as I am - then I would respect their beliefs.

Of course I would not want a smoker or an open racist or a meat eater as those would be too much for me.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> That means if a Catholic woman wanted a Catholic husband then I would not be her right match. If a Jewish woman wants a Jewish husband or a Mormon wants a Mormon or a Muslim Woman wants a Muslim Man then I would not be the right Man to match those Women.
> 
> But if a Woman of any religion or beliefs wanted to be with me as I am - then I would respect their beliefs. Of course I would not want a smoker or an open racist or a meat eater as those would be too much for me.



Why didn't you just say that in the first place. 
That's more understandable then what you said before.

What's wrong with eating meat? It's all good and tasty.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> Why didn't you just say that in the first place.
> That's more understandable then what you said before.



Saying things correctly and in the best of ways is truly the ultimate goal, and I have not reached that point, but at least I do know about it and I do try to do better when I can.

The pen is mightier than the sword - only when the pen writes the words correctly and at the right time and other unknown variables.

Politicians are graded on their speech making, and Lawyers are on their legal briefs, and Judges on their documented opinions, and great persons on the messages they leave to posterity, so to effectively communicate by speaking or writing is the single biggest challenge in making any progress. 

In the Bible Jesus never wrote down one word, so in the Gospels the words attributed to Jesus are often highlighted in red, because the actions are not sufficient as human beings need to have the words and that is a high calling indeed.

So I am happy that my second effort was better than my former posting.



Geruch said:


> What's wrong with eating meat? It's all good and tasty.



It is a matter of giving regard to the animals, as the animals are not really our property to be killed or eaten or whatever, see link here =  PETA - FAQ.

The meat protein itself does not harm the eater but the invisible parts of the meat does harm, as in the meats there is pain and fear and sorrow and when one eats the meat it is eating the pain and fear and sorrows too, and that lowers the person eating it.

And protein is in all (or most) life forms, as protein is high in wheat and oats, rice, vegetables, and a big strong fast horse only eats grasses and veggies.

People do not need to eat animals and there is plenty of protein in plants, and our four (4) pointed teeth do not make mankind into carnivores. In fact in order for people to eat animals then the meats need to be tenderized or else we could not bite or chew it, and it needs to be cooked or else it would be vomited back out, and it needs to be flavored to cover up the nasty flavor of most meats.

And people claim that God permits eating of meat in the Bible, but that is only partly true, in that God lets sinners eat meat as it was not that way in the beginning. At the beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1:29-31 it shows that Mankind (male and female) were created as vegetarians, but after they started sinning THEN they started eating animals and it was not intended to be that way because people were to be better than that as we are to be loving and not killers.

So eating meat is not truly a "sin" but eating it is not doing right and it is not doing best.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> If I were with a Muslim woman who happened to be of the Sharia faith then I would respect that, but she would have to understand and accept my differences too.


Apparently you don't understand.  If a Muslim woman married you (a non-Muslim), she would likely be punished by being stoned to death.  That is how the Sharia law, that you claim to know and love so much, is written.



> I have no complaints against Sharia laws as it is their business and not mine.


Interesting.  I guess when Allah orders it, CS is okay, but when Jesus orders people to care for their children, that is not be enforced... those parents should "handle it on their own".



> If I married a Catholic or Jewish or Mormon woman then I can respect her without becoming the same faith as she has, and if the woman wants her own style in a husband then I would not be the right Man for her match.


Most religions are known to be protective of outsiders when it comes to marriage, but only in Islam could someone be rightfully killed for disobeying the holy laws.



VoteJP said:


> It is a matter of giving regard to the animals, as the animals are not really our property to be killed or eaten or whatever, see link here =  PETA - FAQ.


Native Americans understood that they could use what the earth had given them while respecting that gift, including animal meats and hides.  That includes the knowledge that someday our bodies will return to the earth and used by nature to provide nutrients and so forth, thereby completing the cycle.  PETA is a bunch of crazies because their beliefs are misguided and unreasonable.



> The meat protein itself does not harm the eater but the invisible parts of the meat does harm, as in the meats there is pain and fear and sorrow and when one eats the meat it is eating the pain and fear and sorrows too, and that lowers the person eating it.


   That's a new one to me.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> The meat protein itself does not harm the eater but the invisible parts of the meat does harm, as in the meats there is pain and fear and sorrow and when one eats the meat it is eating the pain and fear and sorrows too, and that lowers the person eating it.



Wow, just Wow 



VoteJP said:


> And people claim that God permits eating of meat in the Bible, but that is only partly true, in that God lets sinners eat meat as it was not that way in the beginning. At the beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1:29-31 it shows that Mankind (male and female) were created as vegetarians, but after they started sinning THEN they started eating animals and it was not intended to be that way because people were to be better than that as we are to be loving and not killers.
> 
> So eating meat is not truly a "sin" but eating it is not doing right and it is not doing best.


Genesis 9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 
*Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;* even as the green herb have I given you all things.



VoteJP said:


> People do not need to eat animals and there is plenty of protein in plants, and our four (4) pointed teeth do not make mankind into carnivores. In fact in order for people to eat animals then the meats need to be tenderized or else we could not bite or chew it, and it needs to be cooked or else it would be vomited back out, and it needs to be flavored to cover up the nasty flavor of most meats.


 Oh really, Then why do some eat their steaks "rare to med rare"?  Most meats don't have to be tenderized depends on the cut of beef. It's usually done with steaks, just depends on the person. I just put some seasoning on. It's not to cover the taste but to inhance the flavor. If you don't cook, bake, fry or grill the meat. The bactrica starts to form and that's what would make people sick.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> So I am happy that my second effort was better than my former posting.


And after all of that searching for a woman that would accept you with your history, that would be... your THIRD attempt at marriage?  Let's see, this is your THIRD attempt for public office?  You know what they say about 3 strikes and 2 wrongs... I hope you find a wife before election day so that it can all end at the same time.


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock.*



Geruch said:


> Genesis 9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
> *Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;* even as the green herb have I given you all things.



I know about Noah, and from that day onward the sinners ruled the earth.

This is the meaning of the famous prayer of: "thy kingdom come ... on earth as it is in heaven" because the Kingdom of violence now rules the earth. 

Out of Noah and his family came the rule of barbaric mankind including the wholesale butchery of animals and the exploitation of the environment and the injustices to other peoples. 

Noah saved humanity, yes, but he did not save it as the Kingdom of God.



Geruch said:


> Oh really, Then why do some eat their steaks "rare to med rare"?  Most meats don't have to be tenderized depends on the cut of beef. It's usually done with steaks, just depends on the person. I just put some seasoning on. It's not to cover the taste but to inhance the flavor. If you don't cook, bake, fry or grill the meat. The bactrica starts to form and that's what would make people sick.



The cattle are processed long before slaughter.

What I meant was to eat a free and wild animal as the way God made the animals, and not the innocent creatures processed to suit the human palate. 

I have heard that to make dogs more vicious they feed the dogs raw meats / wild meats as that turns the dogs more vicious, and the same is true for a person, because inside the meat is violence and to eat meats is to eat violence, even when the meat has been made tasty and palatable.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> inside the meat is violence and to eat meats is to eat violence, even when the meat has been made tasty and palatable.


You may have discovered the path to world peace, Jimmy!!  All we need to do is change our dietary habits!


----------



## VoteJP

*Rock.*



hvp05 said:


> You may have discovered the path to world peace, Jimmy!!  All we need to do is change our dietary habits!



Not really, but that would be a great first step and a rightful beginning.

I am not non violent because of not eating meats, and it is said that both Abe Lincoln and Adolf Hitler were vegetarians, so the best diet is not the final solution.

Like all doctrines it is a two-edged-sword, in that a person must stop putting violence into one self, and then start expressing non violence out of one self too.


----------



## hvp05

VoteJP said:


> *Adolf Hitler* were vegetarians, so the best diet is not *the final solution*.


   Bit of a freudian pun?


----------



## thunderclapp

James P Cusick Sr said:


> I am not non violent because of not eating meats ...



You may have a short memory span but I don't.  



James P Cusick Sr said:


> If we were face-to-face then I would like to strike you for saying that, but as it is then I must take a different way.
> http://forums.somd.com/elections/209230-jp-governor-2.html#post4323294





James P Cusick Sr said:


> You bring your nasty self to my house and you do not have any real business then I will give you some 12 gauge pellets in your gut. http://forums.somd.com/religion/209990-muslims-bad-3.html#post4332224



J P Cusick joins the famous liars club


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> Bit of a freudian pun?



That was not a slip, as I said it on purpose just to add some pizazz to the sentence.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short Bus.*



thunderclapp said:


> You may have a short memory span but I don't.



Being "non-violent" is not a permanent fixture nor characteristic, and I said I was "not non violent" too.

I like the example of Abe Lincoln who himself was a non violent person that fate and circumstances led him into a horribly violent situation.

No all violence is wrong, and in some few cases we have to be violent in order to be non violent.

It does not always have simplistic applications.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> I am not non violent because of not eating meats, and it is said that both Abe Lincoln and Adolf Hitler were vegetarians, so the best diet is not the final solution.



This message came up in my daily google search and I just noticed that it seems you mis-spoke.  Or did you?


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short Bus.*



thunderclapp said:


> This message came up in my daily google search and I just noticed that it seems you mis-spoke.  Or did you?



I have no idea of whatever you are talking about, but if you think I mis-spoke then that is fine by me, or if you think otherwise then that is fine too, and just suit thy self.

Google away.


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> I have no idea of whatever you are talking about, but if you think I mis-spoke then that is fine by me, or if you think otherwise then that is fine too, and just suit thy self.Google away.



To clarify for the thick headed,  J P Cusick said in that measage that he is NOT non violent.  NOT!  NOT!

Get it now?


----------



## thunderclapp

VoteJP said:


> Google away.



Funny you should say that.  I only do it once a day to see if there is anything NEW about you.  But alas, just like your postings in the forums, it's always just the same old horse dung.


----------



## hvp05

thunderclapp said:


> I only do it once a day to see if there is anything NEW about you.  But alas, just like your postings in the forums, it's always just the same old horse dung.


Just wait until 24 hours before the Primary election.  Then he will unleash his media blitz telling the government "Thou shalt not steal" and informing the people "Child support is evil", and the people will say, "Wow, I'd never thought of CS like that before, but I guess that guy is right!"

Then the fun will begin.  Just wait.


----------



## thunderclapp

hvp05 said:


> Just wait until 24 hours before the Primary election.  Then he will unleash his media blitz telling the government "Thou shalt not steal" and informing the people "Child support is evil", and the people will say, "Wow, I'd never thought of CS like that before, but I guess that guy is right!"
> 
> Then the fun will begin.  Just wait.



It will even be better the day after that when the headlines read something like
 "FBI Arrests Gubernatorial Primary Loser For Spray Painting White House"
President Exclaims "Get that Honkey Clown Away From Me!"  
"He's Acting Stupidly!"


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short Bus.*



hvp05 said:


> Just wait until 24 hours before the Primary election.  Then he will unleash his media blitz telling the government "Thou shalt not steal" and informing the people "Child support is evil", and the people will say, "Wow, I'd never thought of CS like that before, but I guess that guy is right!"
> 
> Then the fun will begin.  Just wait.



Now that is an excellent idea.

Wow.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP, James P. Cusick, To tell you the truth, You have NO Previous Job Experience in dealing with City issues, County issues, or State issues.


----------



## VoteJP

*Mr Short-Bus.*



Geruch said:


> VoteJP, James P. Cusick, To tell you the truth, You have NO Previous Job Experience in dealing with City issues, County issues, or State issues.



But I do know the most important things of all - in that I know why and how to reform the Child Support and Custody laws.

That makes me the best candidate for Governor of Maryland.


----------



## Geruch

VoteJP said:


> But I do know the most important things of all -
> in that I know why and how to reform the Child Support and Custody laws.
> 
> That makes me the best candidate for Governor of Maryland.


James P. Cusick, You want to completely removed child support and custody laws. That's not consider Reform. 
Your looking for a easy way out for people that pay child support. That's the only reason your running.

You hate the government, the judges, the police and child support agency's. 
Being a governor involves so much more then just child support and custody laws. 
You have no experience in anything that would come close to what the governor does.

I say, Your not the best candidate. Dream On


----------



## megahurts

Interesting point JP. What does this say about States Attorney Richard Fritz. They are saying he is a dead beat dad but didn't go to jail.  Why not? How can a dead beat dad be the states attorney if failure to pay child support is a crime?


----------



## MMDad

megahurts said:


> Interesting point JP. What does this say about States Attorney Richard Fritz. They are saying he is a dead beat dad but didn't go to jail.  Why not? How can a dead beat dad be the states attorney if failure to pay child support is a crime?



What "crime" do you think it is? Do you have any proof that he commited a criminal offense?


----------



## megahurts

MMDad said:


> What "crime" do you think it is? Do you have any proof that he commited a criminal offense?



That's what I'm trying to figure out. Is failure to pay child support criminal?


----------



## Mdbtyhtr

No, it is civil, but there is precedents for converting to criminal charges and formally extraditing habitual offenders, to include those that veil assets.


----------

